Republicans already working to stop Trump?

[cp1275]

No tinfoil hat there big man. My point is, even if he got 100% of the votes. "they" wouldn't like that. If Cruz got 1237 of course he would be the nominee as well, but they wouldn't like that. If you cant see that, then I don't know what to tell you. It's about no whining, as you put it, so much as it is about them trying to push "their guy" on us. I mean surely you can see that right? Why don't they back Cruz like they did Jeb from the get go? Or the way they backed Rubio? Cruz is far more conservative. But that's not what they want. Hell, they cant stand the guy, yet they talk about how the GOP is a conservative party who needs to get back to it's roots... yeah c'mon man. Nobody is whining. Just stating the obvious. They don't care what you think or want. They use morals to get votes, then when they have a moral guy who stand for the Constitution, they hate him. Cruz people are just as pissed as Trump people man. The voters of those two have spoken, and Washington doesn't like it. What does that tell you? What it tells the majority of people (which if you add those two together, is the majority) is they are done voting after this. Not just trump people., but Cruz people as well. Now that doesn't bode well for America, nor the republican parties future.

I totally agree that they don't want either but either would get the nomination if they got a majority of the delegates, it's that simple. And trust me, there is a lot of whining on my newsfeed from trump supporters about how he should absolutely be the nominee if he has the most delegates even if he doesn't get 1237, they consider it criminal if he doesn't.

 

[cp1275]

Go read some of the comments on articles about Trump. I disagree with you assertion. The majority are hoping he is elected. Some of them are hoping he saves them from their leaders.

Majority means more than 50%. A majority are not hoping that he gets elected.

 

[alex24]

WTF....

Before Lincoln states had more power. The Federal gov didn't have as much power. Lincoln introduced big government. Which is a bad thing unless you are on welfare or an illegal. But, anytime a white man says Lincoln is a piece of shit they are always considered a racist (because Lincoln single handedly freed the slaves with his beard)

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

If the republicans are able to do what is layed out in this article, then I will sit out the presidential election or just vote for the libertarian candidate which I like better anyway. I will vote for Trump if he is the nominee to stop Hillary, but if the republicans use shenanigans to thwart the will of the voters, then I am all out.

http://www.infowars.com/walker-will-endorse-cruz-in-wisc-push/

1. This is from Infowars. Never trust anything from Infowars.

2. If Trump does not have a majority of the delegates at the convention, him not winning after the first ballot would not be "stealing the nomination" from him. In fact, most candidates who've gotten to party conventions without a majority of delegates haven't been nominated. And brokered conventions are well within the party rules.

3. Even if Trump gets a plurality of delegates, the majority of Republican voters will have voted against him. Trump not getting the nomination enfranchises the majority of the party.

 

[Ron Munson]

@Ron Munson We'll need to revisit this later in the year, bc I think IF it's Trump the Dems will show out in huge numbers. Second only to 08 recently.

I just dont think it will happen. 08 was fueled by minorities who were very excited about the potential for a black president and a lot of young people...both demographics that usually stay at home. I just dont see those being motivated enough to show up in the same numbers. I stand by what I originally said,....assuming no major changes, democrats will have the lowest turnout since 1996.

 

[na_alum]

Before Lincoln states had more power. The Federal gov didn't have as much power. Lincoln introduced big government. Which is a bad thing unless you are on welfare or an illegal. But, anytime a white man says Lincoln is a piece of shit they are always considered a racist (because Lincoln single handedly freed the slaves with his beard)

What if I'm on welfare AND illegal.

 

[toolucky52384]

Before Lincoln states had more power. The Federal gov didn't have as much power. Lincoln introduced big government. Which is a bad thing unless you are on welfare or an illegal. But, anytime a white man says Lincoln is a piece of shit they are always considered a racist (because Lincoln single handedly freed the slaves with his beard)

it was also a bad thing for Nazi Germany...

 

[PawPride]

@Ron Munson We'll need to revisit this later in the year, bc I think IF it's Trump the Dems will show out in huge numbers. Second only to 08 recently. I never said they would top 08 and I don't think they have to for Trump to lose by a fairly wide margin.

Well, so far this election republicans are having major turnouts while democrats aren't showing up like they did almost 8 years ago. So the evidence is not on your side.

 

[MillerHighLife21]

I answered your question; you didn't answer mine. If not keeping slavery, then what should the country have done? What have your studies, giving you a "better understanding of history," led you to believe would have been the right course of action?

Consolidation of federal power is the main thing I was referring to.

In terms of abolishing slavery, it was coming no matter what. Even the confederate constitution banned the slave trade. Economically, it was unsustainable. Slave owners were obligated to care for slaves their entire lives which essentially put the burden of social security on them and that was not a small burden.

I've seen letters from the 1870s around Greenville that simultaneously talked of pride in the father joining the Red Shirts (Tillman's group) while going broke supporting and caring elderly former slaves out of a sense of obligation even though they didn't have to. With the history we are taught today, the idea of such is completely contrary to logic...unless there are critical pieces being left out of what we are taught.

Everything is cause and effect. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, even in history.

 

[Ron Munson]

What if I'm on welfare AND illegal.

Then you should just kys.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

It's already over. I've said it many times before, they don't care who you like. They don't care if Trump had 75% of the vote. That's not who "They" want. That's how this works. If people don't see that it's 1 party pretending to be 2, then I don't know what to tell you. The problem that the republicans face is Trump has brought people out that haven't voted in a long time or never have voted, b/c they think the whole thing is rigged. Right or wrong, that's how they feel. Also bringing many left and middle people as well. But if he doesn't get it, they will go back to never voting again. and even though he doesn't have what most people say are the majority, he has a hell of a lot of people. Those people will be done voting, you watch. Also, if he wins, people will be pissed and they wont vote for him. The republican party is done after this election, regardless what they do. So even though he only has "37 %, which is hardly the majority", as one guy stated above. They will lose that 37% after this. And honestly, I don't think they care. The republican party is a joke. They want to be "conservative and Trump doesn't stand for what they stand for and blah blah", but they don't even like the most constitutional conservative we've had in decades in Cruz. They hate him too. They are such a joke man and this election just proves that most Americans are right. Politics are rigged, and they truly do not care what you think. They surely don't care what you want.

Sorry, but this is pure silliness. If Trump is bringing out people who don't vote and would never vote if not for Trump, then how does that mean "the republican party [sic] is done after this election"? Those people weren't voting for Republicans before, and they're not going to vote for them in the future, so why do they matter (this is just based on your account- I think Republicans could do a better job of taking the concerns of white people who are less well-off into account, but you apparently think it's all about Trump)? And if the only reason they're voting is because of Trump, then they shouldn't be voting anyway.

And the rules say that Trump would be the nominee if he had 75% of the vote, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there... Thank God he doesn't have 75% of the vote, though, because that would mean a much more significant amount of people had gone nuts. Following party rules isn't rigging anything.

Also, the reason people don't like Cruz isn't because he's a conservative. It's because he's been obstructionist in the Senate, and he's often been perceived as grandstanding to raise his own profile at the expense of other Republicans who ultimately want to accomplish most of the same things. To many people, he comes off as a smarmy used car salesman-type. But, despite all of that, all the people you think are "rigging" things are getting behind him in an attempt to deny Trump the majority of the delegates. They'd all be much happier with Cruz as the nominee than with Trump, because Trump is singularly unfit for public office in a way that Cruz isn't.

 

[PawPride]

Consolidation of federal power is the main thing I was referring to.

In terms of abolishing slavery, it was coming no matter what. Even the confederate constitution banned the slave trade. Economically, it was unsustainable. Slave owners were obligated to care for slaves their entire lives which essentially put the burden of social security on them and that was not a small burden.

I've seen letters from the 1870s around Greenville that simultaneously talked of pride in the father joining the Red Shirts (Tillman's group) while going broke supporting and caring elderly former slaves out of a sense of obligation even though they didn't have to. With the history we are taught today, the idea of such is completely contrary to logic...unless there are critical pieces being left out of what we are taught.

Everything is cause and effect. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, even in history.

It's a shame but your info will fall on deaf ears. History was written by the victors (duh), and most individuals knowledge of history are contained within a social studies class they took in 6th grade.

 

[Tiger Guru]

Sorry, but this is pure silliness. If Trump is bringing out people who don't vote and would never vote if not for Trump, then how does that mean "the republican party [sic] is done after this election"? Those people weren't voting for Republicans before, and they're not going to vote for them in the future, so why do they matter (this is just based on your account- I think Republicans could do a better job of taking the concerns of white people who are less well into account, but you apparently think it's all about Trump)? And if the only reason they're voting is because of Trump, then they shouldn't be voting anyway.

And the rules say that Trump would be the nominee if he had 75% of the vote, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there... Thank God he doesn't have 75% of the vote, though, because that would mean a much more significant amount of people had gone nuts. Following party rules isn't rigging anything.

Also, the reason people don't like Cruz isn't because he's a conservative. It's because he's been obstructionist in the Senate, and he's often been perceived as grandstanding to raise his own profile at the expense of other Republicans who ultimately want to accomplish most of the same things. To many people, he comes off as a smarmy used car salesman-type. But, despite all of that, all the people you think are "rigging" things are getting behind him in an attempt to deny Trump the majority of the delegates. They'd all be much happier with Cruz as the nominee than with Trump, because Trump is singularly unfit for public office in a way that Cruz isn't.

Because I think in order for any republican to win an election, he must get people who haven't voted, some from the left and some from the middle. Your regular old GOP guys aren't going to win you elections. Just look at 2008. Republican voters are at record highs this go around. That will change and they will go back to just he normal people voting for the GOP, and they will lose every election going forward, simply b/c they do not have the numbers. That's how. But again, it's just MO.

Also, i have never found a president that I completely agree with. I usually only like 1 or two things about them. I find myself always voting against someone, more so than voting for someone.

And for the life of me, im not saying he wouldn't get it if he had 75% of the vote. Im simply saying they are praying to god he doesn't get it. They are playing the game to make sure he doesn't get it. They are doing and feel the same way about Cruz. They are doing everything in their power to make sure he or anyone they don't want for that matter, doesn't get it. That's what i call rigged. And if you think politics are fun, and cool and all is fair im not sure what to tell you. It is rigged. Plain and simple. It always has been. Most people just say it's hardball, or it's for grown men.. i just say it's rigged. I don't sugarcoat it my friend. I guess to me, this is the first year that it's so blatantly obvious. Kind of scary if you ask me. Again, it's just my opinion.

 

[kgwillison]

No disrespect to you, but I don't anyone who would vote for her or Bernie unless they were a liberal. So I don't think you would vote for him or the republican nominee anyways. That's just my opinion. No way possible anyone who isn't left already would vote for her. Now, staying home and not voting, yeah I can see that. But even if you're serious, I would believe otherwise. I mean, she's directly responsible for people dying. She's a crooked liar, who is probably going to jail. I just can't believe anyone would vote for that, that wasn't going to already. Again, JMO.

You MUST live in South Carolina if your world is that narrow. Or somewhere else in the deep South.

Let me assure you that there are many moderate Republicans who feel as I do - they will vote for Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee even if they have never voted for a Democrat before.

If Kasich were the nominee, I would go to work for the man's campaign in Northern Virginia. If Trump is the nominee, I would place a Hillary sign on my front yard. Yeah, the risk of having Donald Trump as president is just that great.

How many Trump supporters on TI read the transcript of his Washington Post editorial roundtable? He evaded every tough question, going so far as to comment what a "good-looking group of people" were sitting around the table and "could I be introduced to them" (this is 40 minutes into the discussion) so he wouldn't have to answer a question about the use of nuclear weapons.

I wish I could say, "the man's a joke," but he is far scarier. The least educated man to ever come this close to the presidency, for certain.

 

[MillerHighLife21]

It's a shame but your info will fall on deaf ears. History was written by the victors (duh), and most individuals knowledge of history are contained within a social studies class they took in 6th grade.

Oh I know. I've learned not to argue about it. I read about it because it's interesting to me and it feels like being part of a huge novel. Just being able to point to references for the critical parts that are left out is about as far as I'll go with it.

 

[Tiger Guru]

You MUST live in South Carolina if your world is that narrow. Or somewhere else in the deep South.

Let me assure you that there are many moderate Republicans who feel as I do - they will vote for Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee even if they have never voted for a Democrat before.

If Kasich were the nominee, I would go to work for the man's campaign in Northern Virginia. If Trump is the nominee, I would place a Hillary sign on my front yard. Yeah, the risk of having Donald Trump as president is just that great.

How many Trump supporters on TI read the transcript of his Washington Post editorial roundtable? He evaded every tough question, going so far as to comment what a "good-looking group of people" were sitting around the table and "could I be introduced to them" (this is 40 minutes into the discussion) so he wouldn't have to answer a question about the use of nuclear weapons.

I wish I could say, "the man's a joke," but he is far scarier. The least educated man to ever come this close to the presidency, for certain.

Im in south Carolina for sure. i guess it's narrow minded then. That's how i feel.

But just like you think, you shake your head at me, i do the same to you. You blow my mind as well. I have no idea how people can feel that way. But it's certainly ok. It's what makes the world turn, ya know. I have no problem with it. Just a different bird..

 

[CU1TruTiger4Life]

Well, so far this election republicans are having major turnouts while democrats aren't showing up like they did almost 8 years ago. So the evidence is not on your side.

@PawPride Well they are choosing between two socialists. No reason to get fired up when they are fine with either choice. Now put one of those two against someone they view as a racist, liar that will remove a lot of the handouts and see how many show up then. You can't base it on the primary numbers when they can't vote against the candidate they hate yet.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

parliaments make more and more sense... access for 3rd parties, consensus governments, gridlock proof majorities, and you can oust an ineffective leader at any time with a floor vote.

I have to disagree strongly with that. What we're seeing with Trump right now is exactly what happens all the time in parliamentary systems. The votes of one bloc of voters (say, conservatives) get split among multiple candidates, and that allows a candidate (like Trump) who's actually unacceptable to the majority of voters in that bloc to be nominated. Then, to block someone like Trump from being elected, imagine if the majority of Republican voters had to get behind another candidate who they normally wouldn't like from a smaller party. Then you'd have a bunch of different candidates in a general election who aren't supported by a majority of voters, and whose support even among the plurality of people who voted for them was tepid at best.

I prefer our system, even if it makes it more difficult to defeat horrible candidates like Trump who are capable of taking over parties where the majority of voters dislike them. I still think that Republicans can avoid nominating Trump while following their own rules, though.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Because I think in order for any republican to win an election, he must get people who haven't voted, some from the left and some from the middle. Your regular old GOP guys aren't going to win you elections. Just look at 2008. Republican voters are at record highs this go around. That will change and they will go back to just he normal people voting for the GOP, and they will lose every election going forward, simply b/c they do not have the numbers. That's how. But again, it's just MO.

Also, i have never found a president that I completely agree with. I usually only like 1 or two things about them. I find myself always voting against someone, more so than voting for someone.

And for the life of me, im not saying he wouldn't get it if he had 75% of the vote. Im simply saying they are praying to god he doesn't get it. They are playing the game to make sure he doesn't get it. They are doing and feel the same way about Cruz. They are doing everything in their power to make sure he or anyone they don't want for that matter, doesn't get it. That's what i call rigged. And if you think politics are fun, and cool and all is fair im not sure what to tell you. It is rigged. Plain and simple. It always has been. Most people just say it's hardball, or it's for grown men.. i just say it's rigged. I don't sugarcoat it my friend. I guess to me, this is the first year that it's so blatantly obvious. Kind of scary if you ask me. Again, it's just my opinion.

"Your regular old guys aren't going to win you elections." Except the "regular old guys" (meaning the mythical "establishment," which apparently includes guys like Rubio who aren't old) were the ones who were all polling comfortably ahead of Hillary Clinton. Embarrassing candidates like Trump are trailing, while more ideological candidates like Cruz are slightly ahead or neck and neck.

"Just look at 2008." 2008 featured one of the most inspiring, articulate, and personally well-liked Democratic candidates- who happened to also be an incumbent- in a long time, against a "rich old white guy" who, however decent he was, just wasn't inspiring. If Republicans had the field of candidates they'd had this year, they'd have won that election despite Obama being a strong candidate.

"Republican voters are at record highs this go around." Well, that's partially attributable to Trump. But it's also partially attributable to people coming out to vote against Trump. That kind of voting is one reason why high primary vote turnout isn't a good predictor of high general election turnout.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

You MUST live in South Carolina if your world is that narrow. Or somewhere else in the deep South.

Let me assure you that there are many moderate Republicans who feel as I do - they will vote for Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee even if they have never voted for a Democrat before.

If Kasich were the nominee, I would go to work for the man's campaign in Northern Virginia. If Trump is the nominee, I would place a Hillary sign on my front yard. Yeah, the risk of having Donald Trump as president is just that great.

How many Trump supporters on TI read the transcript of his Washington Post editorial roundtable? He evaded every tough question, going so far as to comment what a "good-looking group of people" were sitting around the table and "could I be introduced to them" (this is 40 minutes into the discussion) so he wouldn't have to answer a question about the use of nuclear weapons.

I wish I could say, "the man's a joke," but he is far scarier. The least educated man to ever come this close to the presidency, for certain.

While I would never, ever, vote for Trump, don't you think the better thing to do in that situation would be to vote for a third party or not to vote at all? I would expect there to be a pretty major third party candidate if Trump somehow gets the Republican nomination anyway. That's who I'd vote for.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Well, so far this election republicans are having major turnouts while democrats aren't showing up like they did almost 8 years ago. So the evidence is not on your side.

The Democrats aren't voting against Trump yet, though. You can't really look at primary turnout as an indicator of general election turnout.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Is that according to a highly unbiased Fox news poll???

I saw a few weeks ago where Kasich said he wouldn't even consider being Trump's running mate. Thank god for that. And I also saw where Paul Ryan wouldn't accept running for Prez. from a brokered convention.

No, pretty much all polls show that Hillary has extremely high unfavorability ratings... bested only by Trump's.

 

[cp1275]

You MUST live in South Carolina if your world is that narrow. Or somewhere else in the deep South.

Let me assure you that there are many moderate Republicans who feel as I do - they will vote for Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee even if they have never voted for a Democrat before.

If Kasich were the nominee, I would go to work for the man's campaign in Northern Virginia. If Trump is the nominee, I would place a Hillary sign on my front yard. Yeah, the risk of having Donald Trump as president is just that great.

How many Trump supporters on TI read the transcript of his Washington Post editorial roundtable? He evaded every tough question, going so far as to comment what a "good-looking group of people" were sitting around the table and "could I be introduced to them" (this is 40 minutes into the discussion) so he wouldn't have to answer a question about the use of nuclear weapons.

I wish I could say, "the man's a joke," but he is far scarier. The least educated man to ever come this close to the presidency, for certain.

I read that transcript, it was terrifying. I don't agree with the Hillary stuff but there is zero chance that I will ever cast a vote for Donald Trump.

 

[alex24]

What if I'm on welfare AND illegal.

hopefully you get deported

 

[Transference]

You are aware that many other countries ended slavery without anything close to what happened here. 12 years of military enforced conflict between Union leagues and the KKK, driven by people entering the area with a goal of exploiting it among other issues is what led to Jim Crow laws which fed most of what came next.

You seem very defensive for somebody accusing another of trying to reinforce their own worldview.

Many other countries didn't have a civil war whose start was influenced by the societal institution of slavery. Even so, you see apartheid happening in South Africa over 100 years after abolishment of slavery in British colonies, with many more like situations happening in every country that had slavery as an institution. The idea that America is the only post-slavery country that has experienced things like formed hate groups, differing militia groups from all sides, Jim Crow style laws or prolonged institutional racism is devoid of any rational or scholastic thought.

No need for me to be defensive, I actually know what I am talking about.

 

[Tiger Guru]

"Your regular old guys aren't going to win you elections." Except the "regular old guys" (meaning the mythical "establishment," which apparently includes guys like Rubio who aren't old) were the ones who were all polling comfortably ahead of Hillary Clinton. Embarrassing candidates like Trump are trailing, while more ideological candidates like Cruz are slightly ahead or neck and neck.

"Just look at 2008." 2008 featured one of the most inspiring, articulate, and personally well-liked Democratic candidates- who happened to also be an incumbent- in a long time, against a "rich old white guy" who, however decent he was, just wasn't inspiring. If Republicans had the field of candidates they'd had this year, they'd have won that election despite Obama being a strong candidate.

"Republican voters are at record highs this go around." Well, that's partially attributable to Trump. But it's also partially attributable to people coming out to vote against Trump. That kind of voting is one reason why high primary vote turnout isn't a good predictor of high general election turnout.

1- By my signature, im sure you can tell I don't care about what polls show. I don't believe them. Have o idea how they get these numbers. I, nor anyone I know, has ever been polled. Not to say it's made up. I don't trust "what they say".

2- Obama wasn't strong, IMO. He was full of promises. It sounded good to young people. He was also going against McCain. That's like when Peyton went against Cutler.

3- Maybe so. We shall see. I'll venture to say the Republican party will never be the same.

 

[FreeSC]

?

Too much history to cover.
I highly recommend "The Real Lincoln", and "When in the Course of Human Events".

Lincoln was NOT the Great Emancipator, but WAS the Great Centralizer of power. Karl Marx was a huge fan of his.

 

[FreeSC]

As a first book, my general recommendation always goes to Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events. He's a northern historian. Many of the books by southern authors come across as very emotional which undermines their credibility even though many citations are provided.

Citations are a HUGE part of the reason that I recommend the Adams book though. He cites sentences mid-paragraph while several of the others will just list a collection of cites at the end of a chapter making it harder to figure out what came from where. With the Adam's book, when you read a sentence that makes you say "There is no way that's real" and you can punch the cite straight into Google to either find it from their documents archive or look it up in the Library of Congress and say...wow...holy crap that is real.

If you want to get some initial inspiration though, the Cherokee Declaration of Causes documents so much of what was going on 6 months into the war that most people never hear about, it's fairly eye opening.

From there go to McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. That particular tome is the core reference that most people recognize as the best documentation of the time period. Reading Adams first will let you spot the critical pieces that are left out or glossed over.

Miller, excellent, as usual.
I always love it when someone discovers the truth.

In regards to Lincoln in particular, I usually refer people to "The Real Lincoln" by Tom Delorenzo.
Excellent work. The critics that are part of the Lincoln cult HATE it, but they cannot refute the facts in it...

 

[Cavitybacks]

You MUST live in South Carolina if your world is that narrow. Or somewhere else in the deep South.

Let me assure you that there are many moderate Republicans who feel as I do - they will vote for Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee even if they have never voted for a Democrat before.

If Kasich were the nominee, I would go to work for the man's campaign in Northern Virginia. If Trump is the nominee, I would place a Hillary sign on my front yard. Yeah, the risk of having Donald Trump as president is just that great.

How many Trump supporters on TI read the transcript of his Washington Post editorial roundtable? He evaded every tough question, going so far as to comment what a "good-looking group of people" were sitting around the table and "could I be introduced to them" (this is 40 minutes into the discussion) so he wouldn't have to answer a question about the use of nuclear weapons.

I wish I could say, "the man's a joke," but he is far scarier. The least educated man to ever come this close to the presidency, for certain.

What is Hillary's platform? People talk about Trump evading questions. I don't even know what Hillary stands for other than expanding obamacare, medicare, and social security.

Also, any moderate Republican who votes for Hillary is also a vote for at least 2 or 3 liberal supreme court justices. That would do much more damage than Trump could do to our country if you have any sort of conservative values.

 

[FreeSC]

Just stop.

Just read "The Real Lincoln", then get back to me.
Expand your mind.
"The Great Centralizer" is the man the establishment loves. So did Karl Marx, who was a fan, because of his great expansion of federal powers.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

1- By my signature, im sure you can tell I don't care about what polls show. I don't believe them. Have o idea how they get these numbers. I, nor anyone I know, has ever been polled. Not to say it's made up. I don't trust "what they say".

2- Obama wasn't strong, IMO. He was full of promises. It sounded good to young people. He was also going against McCain. That's like when Peyton went against Cutler.

3- Maybe so. We shall see. I'll venture to say the Republican party will never be the same.

1. All we have to go on at this point is polls, and the polls show that a wider swathe of people liked guys like Rubio and Kasich than like guys like Cruz (who I do like) and Trump (who I think is totally unacceptable). Polls aren't just somebody's opinion, so I'd rather base what I think on them than on gut feelings.

2. The fact that Obama was full of hot air while being personally attractive is exactly what made him a strong candidate. Whatever you think of his policies or his empty rhetoric, he's inspiring to a lot of people who will support him almost no matter what policies he was for. While McCain was a war hero, he just wasn't as inspiring a candidate as Obama. Romney obviously wasn't, either.

3. I hope the Republican Party is never the same, because it needs to change to prevent more candidacy's like Trump's. It needs to be more responsive to populist concerns so that they can be channeled into legitimate policy rather than outrageous outbursts from the Trump's of the world. If you look at what's going on in Europe, many of the center-right parties haven't paid enough attention to their more conservative and populist voters, and it's led to gains in influence for parties that are pretty dangerous and far out of the mainstream. I don't want to see that happen here.

 

[Tiger Guru]

What is Hillary's platform? People talk about Trump evading questions. I don't even know what Hillary stands for other than expanding obamacare, medicare, and social security.

Also, any moderate Republican who votes for Hillary is also a vote for at least 2 or 3 liberal supreme court justices. That would do much more damage than Trump could do to our country if you have any sort of conservative values.

All I know, is her and Bernie praise Obama. Yet all they ever say is this country is worse than it's ever been. We are terrible. We are racist, we hate woman and everyone is poor. Well who the hell has been running this country for 7 years, and what are they going to do differently than the one they think is great? They have been in full control, and the republicans don't even put up a fight to stop them lol. So they are just as guilty to I guess.

 

[Cavitybacks]

Im in south Carolina for sure. i guess it's narrow minded then. That's how i feel.

But just like you think, you shake your head at me, i do the same to you. You blow my mind as well. I have no idea how people can feel that way. But it's certainly ok. It's what makes the world turn, ya know. I have no problem with it. Just a different bird..

I also cannot fathom how a conservative/republican/moderate republican could possibly choose to either not vote, vote 3rd party, or vote for Hillary. All 3 of those options are votes for Hillary. I will never understand that. It blows my mind.

 

[Tiger Guru]

1. All we have to go on at this point is polls, and the polls show that a wider swathe of people liked guys like Rubio and Kasich than like guys like Cruz (who I do like) and Trump (who I think is totally unacceptable). Polls aren't just somebody's opinion, so I'd rather base what I think on them than on gut feelings.

2. The fact that Obama was full of hot air while being personally attractive is exactly what made him a strong candidate. Whatever you think of his policies or his empty rhetoric, he's inspiring to a lot of people who will support him almost no matter what policies he was for. While McCain was a war hero, he just wasn't as inspiring a candidate as Obama. Romney obviously wasn't, either.

3. I hope the Republican Party is never the same, because it needs to change to prevent more candidacy's like Trump's. It needs to be more responsive to populist concerns so that they can be channeled into legitimate policy rather than outrageous outbursts from the Trump's of the world. If you look at what's going on in Europe, many of the center-right parties haven't paid enough attention to their more conservative and populist voters, and it's led to gains in influence for parties that are pretty dangerous and far out of the mainstream. I don't want to see that happen here.

I prefer there to be an Antifederalist party again. That, I could vote for. But it doesn't exist now.

 

[iceheart08]

in

 

[other1]

I said that Democrats will have one of the lowest turnouts in recent memory. They will not turn out like they did in 08 and 12, or even 2004. You said you thought they would. Democrats are much more difficult to motivate to get to the polls.

I also said that republicans are having record turn out in the primaries, while democrats are extremely low. Almost 40% more Republicans voted in Florida and 70% more in Ohio. And at the time, early head to head polling showed Trump winning in Ohio and Florida....and that was among registered voters and those polls always favor the democrat.

Once Hillary is forced to debate, and the negative adds hit, as well as more and more terrorists attacks, I still think Trump could beat her.

Hillary will shit all over Trump in a debate because Trump knows nothing about foreign policy other than "forcing" other countries to do what he wants.

 

[kgwillison]

While I would never, ever, vote for Trump, don't you think the better thing to do in that situation would be to vote for a third party or not to vote at all? I would expect there to be a pretty major third party candidate if Trump somehow gets the Republican nomination anyway. That's who I'd vote for.

To not vote at all increases the possibility of Donald Trump winning the Virginia presidential race - the only race I can control with my vote. Moreover, to NOT vote goes completely against everything I have been taught and preached to my own kids. I grew up in a house where my mom was an elections officer and the precinct in California voted right in my living room ... for years. I could not wait to be 18 to exercise my right to vote. Not vote? Never.

To vote for a third party candidate will not advance what my primary goal is: to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president. In my mind, the risk of Donald Trump becoming president is far, far worse than the risk to the country should Hillary Clinton become president. (Unless, of course, you want South Korea and Japan building their own nuclear bombs, which Trump espouses.) In this case, I have no choice but to support whichever Democratic candidate becomes the party's nominee. Actually, Bernie Sanders would be an easier person to vote for because he would largely be unable to move any far-left legislation because even the Democrats in Congress would be worried about losing elections in 2018.

This is an easy decision if, like me, you think the greatest possible threat to the well-being of the United States is President DJT. Even if it is a decision you wish you didn't have to make.

 

[kgwillison]

What is Hillary's platform? People talk about Trump evading questions. I don't even know what Hillary stands for other than expanding obamacare, medicare, and social security.

Also, any moderate Republican who votes for Hillary is also a vote for at least 2 or 3 liberal supreme court justices. That would do much more damage than Trump could do to our country if you have any sort of conservative values.

What is your case against Judge Garland? I actually think the GOP ought to approve him. He's qualified to serve and is well respected by people in both parties. (And don't start with his being a threat the the 2nd Amendment. Find proof in his rulings of that. There is none.)

And who knows who Trump would appoint? What makes you think he would appoint a conservative when he, himself, is really not a conservative.

 

[Ron Munson]

Hillary will shit all over Trump in a debate because Trump knows nothing about foreign policy other than "forcing" other countries to do what he wants.

Not really. Regardless of what people say, he has been winning most of his debates.

Hillary has yet to answer for Bengahzi, her emails and other things. The DNC protected her from having to answer these in any detail or to followup questions (and that is a fact, not an opinion). Trump, or Cruz, will destroy her in a debate. In case you haven't been watching, she has look terrible on stage so far.

Trump may not know much about foreign policy, but Hillary has a terrible record of foreign policy.

 

[Cavitybacks]

What is your case against Judge Garland? I actually think the GOP ought to approve him. He's qualified to serve and is well respected by people in both parties. (And don't start with his being a threat the the 2nd Amendment. Find proof in his rulings of that. There is none.)

And who knows who Trump would appoint? What makes you think he would appoint a conservative when he, himself, is really not a conservative.

He certainly doesn't compare to Scalia, but I agree that he seems pretty fair coming from Obama. Does Hillary want him?

I'm far from a Trump supporter, but I think Hillary would be even worse. I'm not suggesting Trump is a trustworthy guy, but Hillary is just an awful candidate as well.

All this "Trump is scary stuff" is BS imo. Hillary is "scary" in her own way. In the end, you really just a need a leader that can try to bring Americans together. Obama was as divisive as you could get, but my fear is Hillary could even make things worse.