Trump: I Don't Need GOP Unity to Win, "I honestly don’t want their endorsement."

[A-Lert]

That you think Trump has the interests of the nation in mind reflects poorly on you.  He hasn't thought through ANY of his policies.  His vague and confused references to his buzz words are not backed up by any plans whatsoever to do what he says he'll do.  He knows how to play people for suckers.

And some on this forum have fallen for the siren song of a huckster.

http://player.mashpedia.com/player.php?q=C_knRyu2ol8

Larry King: Donald Trump is not a racist

[A-Lert]

That you think Trump has the interests of the nation in mind reflects poorly on you.  He hasn't thought through ANY of his policies.  His vague and confused references to his buzz words are not backed up by any plans whatsoever to do what he says he'll do.  He knows how to play people for suckers.

And some on this forum have fallen for the siren song of a huckster.

Appears you've been duped/suckered a few times. 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/donald-trump-2016-election-rich-people-218940

Trump: 'I don't even like the rich people very much'

"My weakest support is with very rich people. Isn't that funny?" Trump asked.

"I don't get along that well with the rich. I don't even like the rich people very much," he admitted. "It's like a weird deal."

[kjam22]

Appears you've been duped/suckered a few times. 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/donald-trump-2016-election-rich-people-218940

Trump: 'I don't even like the rich people very much'

"My weakest support is with very rich people. Isn't that funny?" Trump asked.

"I don't get along that well with the rich. I don't even like the rich people very much," he admitted. "It's like a weird deal."

King Trumpy has lived an entire life time around rich people.  Parties, dinners, socialite events......  Television star etc.    You don't see him hanging out at the soup kitchen helping feed the homeless or something just very often.   He is a rich guy and more than that.... he is a rich con guy.

[A-Lert]

King Trumpy has lived an entire life time around rich people.  Parties, dinners, socialite events......  Television star etc.    You don't see him hanging out at the soup kitchen helping feed the homeless or something just very often.   He is a rich guy and more than that.... he is a rich con guy.

No, he's lived most of it working with employees, being around cab drivers, construction workers, studio employees, etc. Did you bring your  'King Trumpy' with you from FR? It's kind of childish, don't you think?

[kjam22]

No, he's lived most of it working with employees, being around cab drivers, construction workers, studio employees, etc. Did you bring your  'King Trumpy' with you from FR? It's kind of childish, don't you think?

Lol... nah....  I think it is highly descriptive, and extraordinarily accurate.  King Trumpy has spent way more time with the high brow people than he has the little people that you describe.  You're dreaming if you think he hasn't.

[don-o]

If in fact the dreaded GOPe loses "their control" what then?

What do you or Trump have ready to fill its place?

What will fill the void left behind after the demise of the GOPe?

The answer to that is simple.

Democrats.

Game. Set. Match!

[truth_seeker]

Not sure I but that all myself at this point, but I'm definitely considering not voting for President in November.

My analysis is very simple. Any Republican is better than any democrat, almost every time. (More conservative, too)

Therefore Trump is a better choice than either democrat. Making it more complex is not necessary.

I do not ever not vote. I apply the analysis above. Win or lose, I have given "conservatism" my small amount of support.

[A-Lert]

My analysis is very simple. Any Republican is better than any democrat, almost every time. (More conservative, too)

Therefore Trump is a better choice than either democrat. Making it more complex is not necessary.

I do not ever not vote. I apply the analysis above. Win or lose, I have given "conservatism" my small amount of support.

 

[WAC]

You stated......"I think the most likely result of a Trump victor in 4 years is -- at best -- holding serve on the Supreme Court, followed by a massive Democrat tide in 2020 that will sweep statehouses, Congress, and the Presidency.  That will include giving the Democrats the power to gerrymander and pick up and additional 15-20 House seats over the next decade.  There's a legit case to be made that letting Hillary fall on her face, and follow that up with a massive GOP tide in 2020 and 8 years of a strong GOP President is the better course in the long term..............................................Not sure I but that all myself at this point, but I'm definitely considering not voting for President in November."



Yes, I've heard this case be made as well.....the powers that be are always years ahead in their planning elections.....The idea of a Hillary win over Trump, in light of the long term,  may prove the GOP willingness to sacrifice this election.  They are certainly holding back endorsing Trump at this juncture........
The twist for me is I wouldn't put it past Trump, Bill Clinton and the media purposely  paving the way for Hillary.......he'll come out of this unscathed win or loose..........

[libertybele]

My analysis is very simple. Any Republican is better than any democrat, almost every time. (More conservative, too)

Therefore Trump is a better choice than either democrat. Making it more complex is not necessary.

I do not ever not vote. I apply the analysis above. Win or lose, I have given "conservatism" my small amount of support.

Your theory has one huge hole in it; Trump is NOT a conservative and he himself has acknowledged that.  His main objective is to destroy the Republican party. The party has been long divided before this primary contest.  Trump has taken full advantage of that division preying upon an angry electorate who is eager for a resolution.  They have fed into his con game.  He is a liberal.  If he is POTUS (and he has already stated he needs to be more establishment) he will pander to the left and impose taxes and tariffs as long as it makes him money. As an example  Trump will impose the DEMS green energy plan - it will make him money, meanwhile taxing individuals for energy consumption (part of the UN plan as well).  He may build that wall, but I have no doubt that trade between Mexico, US and Canada will forever surrender our sovereignty.  He will build the proposed NAFTA superhighway that was proposed and rejected by the people and Congress long ago.

Giving one of the most wealthy men in the world one of the most powerful positions in the world is absolutely insane!

#NeverTrump

[libertybele]

You stated......"I think the most likely result of a Trump victor in 4 years is -- at best -- holding serve on the Supreme Court, followed by a massive Democrat tide in 2020 that will sweep statehouses, Congress, and the Presidency.  That will include giving the Democrats the power to gerrymander and pick up and additional 15-20 House seats over the next decade.  There's a legit case to be made that letting Hillary fall on her face, and follow that up with a massive GOP tide in 2020 and 8 years of a strong GOP President is the better course in the long term..............................................Not sure I but that all myself at this point, but I'm definitely considering not voting for President in November."



Yes, I've heard this case be made as well.....the powers that be are always years ahead in their planning elections.....The idea of a Hillary win over Trump, in light of the long term,  may prove the GOP willingness to sacrifice this election.  They are certainly holding back endorsing Trump at this juncture........
The twist for me is I wouldn't put it past Trump, Bill Clinton and the media purposely  paving the way for Hillary.......he'll come out of this unscathed win or loose..........

I have no doubt that Trump is working in concert with the Clintons to pave the way for Hillary ... the GOP realizes this.  By allowing Hillary a win the 'Washington cartel' remains in tact.  A Trump win will destroy the GOP and they lose their seats; that they can't allow.  Allowing a Cruz victory means he will obliterate the Washington cartel and reviving the party and they lose their seats.    Clinton is their best hope in keeping the status quo in Washington. 

[Jazzhead]

A carrot-topped fascist who will drag down every Republican across the country.

Precisely.   If Trump wins Indiana,  this now becomes a fight against fascism, pure and simple.   The first step may well be to condemn those party "leaders" who would reconcile with Trumpism.   Those who would support Trumpism must be shamed and ostracized. 

[Bigun]

I have no doubt that Trump is working in concert with the Clintons to pave the way for Hillary ... the GOP realizes this.  By allowing Hillary a win the 'Washington cartel' remains in tact.  A Trump win will destroy the GOP and they lose their seats; that they can't allow.  Allowing a Cruz victory means he will obliterate the Washington cartel and reviving the party and they lose their seats.    Clinton is their best hope in keeping the status quo in Washington.

B I N G O ! ! !

[MACVSOG68]

I wouldn't go that far.  I mean, there are times when members of Congress who are having a difficult reelection campaign will be given a "wink", and given a pass for voting the "wrong way" on an issue.  It's a recognition that sometimes, you have to accept something you don't like so as not to lose an entire seat over one issue.

So, I could understand it party leaders give at least some support to Trump so as not to alienate the admittedly large number of GOP primary voters who support the guy.  If the party openly sabotages him, it could break the party beyond repair, and put us in permanent minority status.  That might facilitate even greater evils.

Absolutely.

[LonestarDream]

The names Trump floated so far SC are center-right to right.

Hillary will cause us to lose court for 30 years.  And the court makes the laws.

The argument in 2008 of 'let the other win and we will come back stronger in four years' has not worked out...

I loathe McCain and Romney was a disappointment, but both were good votes.

Almost every time.  This may be an exception.

If the guy wasn't running against the party, I probably wouldn't feel this way.  But in some sense, it feels akin to getting a gun, loading it, and then handing it to the guy who is promising to shoot you in the head.   

I have not yet decided definitively that I am not voting for him.  I'm leaning that way right now, but may feel differently come November.  No matter what, however, I'll vote to re-elect my GOP Senator, and my GOP Congressional representative.

But I really think that whichever Presidential candidate gets elected now, that party will lose big-time in 2020.  I think we're heading for some very rocky economic times simply because of the business cycle, and both Trump and Hillary are likely to do more harm to the economy than good.  Not sure if having Hillary for the next four years is really so much worse than having another Democrat for the eight years after that.

[Jazzhead]

I wouldn't go that far.  I mean, there are times when members of Congress who are having a difficult reelection campaign will be given a "wink", and given a pass for voting the "wrong way" on an issue.  It's a recognition that sometimes, you have to accept something you don't like so as not to lose an entire seat over one issue.

So, I could understand it party leaders give at least some support to Trump so as not to alienate the admittedly large number of GOP primary voters who support the guy.  If the party openly sabotages him, it could break the party beyond repair, and put us in permanent minority status.  That might facilitate even greater evils.

You're probably right, of course;  I've always considered Trump to be a third party candidate, who's high-jacked the Republican party for his own purposes.   I will be fighting like heck for Pat Toomey and other down-ballot Republicans.  But my major issue this fall will be the defeat of Trumpism by any means necessary.  If party leaders coalesce behind him for pragmatic reasons,  I will understand but I have no taste for pragmatism when it comes to this evil.

[truth_seeker]

I'm confused, because on this thread Trump has been accused of being both a fascist (right) and a communist (left).

I missed the reasoning for such wild claims.

[Jazzhead]

I'd agree that is over the top -- especially the communist part because there is absolutely zero basis for that.

I think the fascist label is accurate, based on comparisons with such populist demagogues/strongmen as Mussolini, Chavez and Putin.  Each in their own way exploit the fears and prejudices of the volk with promises to use centralized government authority to "make the trains run on time".     

[don-o]

You're probably right, of course;  I've always considered Trump to be a third party candidate, who's high-jacked the Republican party for his own purposes.   I will be fighting like heck for Pat Toomey and other down-ballot Republicans.  But my major issue this fall will be the defeat of Trumpism by any means necessary.  If party leaders coalesce behind him for pragmatic reasons,  I will understand but I have no taste for pragmatism when it comes to this evil.

When asked why he ran as a Republican, his answer was, "Because I can win." Nothing at all about principles.

[A-Lert]

I'm confused, because on this thread Trump has been accused of being both a fascist (right) and a communist (left).

I missed the reasoning for such wild claims.

Anti-Trumps don't need no steenkin' reasoning.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm confused, because on this thread Trump has been accused of being both a fascist (right) and a communist (left).

Lt me help you out.

Both Fascists and Communists are leftists.

[MACVSOG68]

Well...I think he's probably somewhere on that continuum, but not nearly as far along as any of those guys.  So, while he may have some ideas in common with fascism, the label itself may not be a comletely fair representation.  But to me, there are three additional reasons to avoid using it

1) We have constitutional structures that are much stronger than any that existed in any of those countries.  Even Obama has been shot down by the courts, and Trump would be entering office without the kind of devoted support from a major party that Obama had.  So, even if Trump actually is a fascist, he's not going to be able to govern like one.  He simply lacks the power base to do so in the face of our constitutional structures.

2) I think it is one of those inflammatory words that detracts from being able to engage on the issues themselves.  As soon as someone says "he's a fascist", the comparison immediately shifts to comparing him to Hitler, or Mussolini, or Putin, or Chavez.  The debate then becomes about the accuracy of the label, and plays (somewhat) into the mindset of some Trump supporters that his opponents are just drama queens. 

3) Where I think the label is really unfair in that all four of those guys actively support the violent suppression of dissent.  Street goons (and/or secret police) actively seeking out and trying to disrupt/suppress gatherings of their political opponents.  That is perhaps a core characteristic of fascism, and Trump has not done that.  Worse, the use of that label minimizes the truly fascistic actions of the Chavez-like leftist groups that are trying to shut down his rallies.

Trump is a populist goofball who has some fascist tendencies on economics.  Be we ought to reserve the label of "fascist" for the leftists who are actually engaging in truly fascistic behavior.  And perhaps draw more attention to the mainstream Democrats -- including both Hillary and Bernie -- who are refusing to condemn it.


 

Well stated.  Not much to add.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

How about this, Trump isn't a fascist but a damn significant percentage of his supporters are.

I even had the graphic of "Donald Trump driving and pointing a gun" at me last night on Twitter. And he does have a lot of white nationalist support.

[jmyrlefuller]

My analysis is very simple. Any Republican is better than any democrat, almost every time. (More conservative, too)

Therefore Trump is a better choice than either democrat. Making it more complex is not necessary.

I do not ever not vote. I apply the analysis above. Win or lose, I have given "conservatism" my small amount of support.

There comes a point where party loyalty such as this becomes the problem in this country. Blind fealty to the notion of "there are only two choices and one is always better than the other" is exactly how charlatans get to hijack the political process.

So go ahead. Snort and sneer at people who consider other options.

[olde north church]

After the drek the RNC, ooops, "previous primary voters", have pushed our noses in, from GHWB, Dole, McCain, Romney and stated "VOTE OR DIE", this election has been all about the scales dropping from the voters eyes.  Trump is no worse than the Establishment choices of years past and if he does one thing, ONE THING, he has promised has surpassed the sum of previous Republican administrations going back to Reagan.
I wonder which pundit, which D.C. Establishment, which bureaucrat, which Washington insider hides behind the screen names of those who populate this forum.  I wonder why I smell the fear of dollars lost.  Why I smell the sulfur.
You obviously have better lives planned for your progeny than the futures you have planned for the "average American".