The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: DCPatriot on October 18, 2015, 02:02:18 pm
-
Trump triples down on George W. Bush’s responsibility for 9/11
By Karoun Demirjian
Donald Trump says he doesn’t flat out blame former president George W. Bush that the Sept. 11 terror attacks happened on his watch. But he can think of three reasons why one could hold Bush responsible.
And, he might add, they are three things a President Trump would do very differently.
“You always have to look to the person at the top,” Trump said Saturday in a telephone interview. “Do I blame George Bush? I only say that he was the president at the time, and you know, you could say the buck stops here.”
So why might one consider Bush responsible?
No. 1: Bush’s immigration policy. “We had very weak immigration laws,” Trump said, adding that perhaps if Bush had had a Trump-style immigration policy, replete with “the strong laws that I’m wanting, these terrorists wouldn’t have been in the country.”
No. 2: People knew that the FBI, the National Security Council, and the CIA weren’t sharing information about potential threats. “They were not talking to each other,” Trump said. “If I’m president, I want to have my three most important agencies talking to each other and coordinating with each other.”
And No. 3: George Tenet, Bush’s director of central intelligence, “knew in advance that there would be an attack, and he said that.”
more at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2015/10/18/trump-triples-down-on-george-w-bushs-responsibility-for-911/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2015/10/18/trump-triples-down-on-george-w-bushs-responsibility-for-911/)
_______________________________________________________________________
-
IMO, this is another example of Donald Trump's marketing acumen. He fully realizes that many Republicans don't like him. He gets it.
What he also 'gets'? That there are many registered Democrats and more than a few Republicans who still insist that George W. Bush [praise be his name] was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
In short....he's grabbing more voters. While distancing himself from the Bush family, he's also gaining more voters that are still fence post sitters.
And his polling numbers bear it out.
Another reason may be that he's setting up a strategy in the event he needs to go third party...since the GOPe may change the rules for the primaries.
-
IMO, this is another example of Donald Trump's marketing acumen. He fully realizes that many Republicans don't like him. He gets it.
What he also 'gets'? That there are many registered Democrats and more than a few Republicans who still insist that George W. Bush [praise be his name] was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
In short....he's grabbing more voters. While distancing himself from the Bush family, he's also gaining more voters that are still fence post sitters.
And his polling numbers bear it out.
Another reason may be that he's setting up a strategy in the event he needs to go third party...since the GOPe may change the rules for the primaries.
He's a despicable bastard for blaming Bush for 9/11, but I fully expect him to go full Jesse Ventura on us over the next few months. Crazy, hateful, slimy, now a Truther.
And, he lies. Blaming Bush's immigration policies when he had been in office eight months is pulling a fast one. His boot-lickers, though, aren't smart enough to realize this, so they'll nod their heads, empty their drool cups, and cheer this cretin on.
-
He's a despicable bastard for blaming Bush for 9/11, but I fully expect him to go full Jesse Ventura on us over the next few months. Crazy, hateful, slimy, now a Truther.
And, he lies. Blaming Bush's immigration policies when he had been in office eight months is pulling a fast one. His boot-lickers, though, aren't smart enough to realize this, so they'll nod their heads, empty their drool cups, and cheer this cretin on.
Love you, too!
SHOCK POLL: Trump Blue Collar Support highest since FDR in 1930s
http://prntly.com/blog/2015/10/17/shock-poll-trump-blue-collar-support-highest-since-fdr-in-1930s/ (http://prntly.com/blog/2015/10/17/shock-poll-trump-blue-collar-support-highest-since-fdr-in-1930s/)
-
DC, I love you too, but I rest my case.
Trump hates the Bush family. We get that. He hates anybody who disagrees with him, pokes at him, or does something he doesn't like.
One of these days, this orangutan-haired Truther will run out of people to hate.
-
He's a despicable bastard for blaming Bush for 9/11, but I fully expect him to go full Jesse Ventura on us over the next few months. Crazy, hateful, slimy, now a Truther.
And, he lies. Blaming Bush's immigration policies when he had been in office eight months is pulling a fast one. His boot-lickers, though, aren't smart enough to realize this, so they'll nod their heads, empty their drool cups, and cheer this cretin on.
We can blame Clinton as well for him not taking out Bin Laden when he had the chance; but at the end of the day, Bush was president on 9-11. Jeb's claim that he kept us safe is simply not true. We were attacked on his watch. Don't get me wrong, I was a huge supporter of "W"'s and worked many hours, made plenty of door-to-door contacts and made plenty of phone calls to get him elected the first time around and the 2nd time around. I agree, 8 months into his term on immigration is a bit unfair; but it was his actions during his 2nd term in office that I was so disappointed in.
Trump is trying to muddy the Bush name. I for one am tired of the "dynasties" controlling this country and have little doubt that experiencing Jeb as governor; another Bush vying for the White House will give us another DEM.
-
We can blame Clinton as well for him not taking out Bin Laden when he had the chance; but at the end of the day, Bush was president on 9-11. Jeb's claim that he kept us safe is simply not true. We were attacked on his watch. Don't get me wrong, I was a huge supporter of "W"'s and worked many hours, made plenty of door-to-door contacts and made plenty of phone calls to get him elected the first time around and the 2nd time around. I agree, 8 months into his term on immigration is a bit unfair; but it was his actions during his 2nd term in office that I was so disappointed in.
Trump is trying to muddy the Bush name. I for one am tired of the "dynasties" controlling this country and have little doubt that experiencing Jeb as governor; another Bush vying for the White House will give us another DEM.
Trump is trying to SLANDER Bush. I'm putting you on ignore since you seem to think Trump has a point in blaming Bush for 9/11.
Is there anything this Democrat-in-disguise can say that you disagree with? I can't believe some of you are that dumb!
-
(http://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2013/02/11/Captain_Hindsight_766605.jpg)
-
(http://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2013/02/11/Captain_Hindsight_766605.jpg)
Exactly!
But, IMO, it serves a purpose for 'candidate' Trump.
If there were no such thing as a low-information voter, he'd have never said it.
-
Exactly!
But, IMO, it serves a purpose for 'candidate' Trump.
If there were no such thing as a low-information voter, he'd have never said it.
Oh, he'd have still said it. Trump hates the Bush family. If he knew your family, he'd hate them too if they were trying to compete with him in ANY way.
-
Exactly!
But, IMO, it serves a purpose for 'candidate' Trump.
If there were no such thing as a low-information voter, he'd have never said it.
Like it or not, if the GOP wants to win the presidency (and sometimes I wonder) they had better reach out to the LIV. That's how Democrats win!
-
Amazing how the Trump upsets some. I wonder about him too.
-
Bush had been President a little over 7 months when 9/11 occurred. This is a short time period into his Presidency. It would seem difficult to make the case against Bush based on limited time, though actions of Bush and particularly prior Presidents should be analyzed. I understand that most of the Muslim terrorists were in this country illegally, on overstayed visas. Trump certainly has a point on our terrible lack of enforcement on visas.
-
Trump certainly has a point on our terrible lack of enforcement on visas.
Yes he does.
-
Like it or not, if the GOP wants to win the presidency (and sometimes I wonder) they had better reach out to the LIV. That's how Democrats win!
So the GOP has to suck up to the Truthers now? Dumb down our message to get the Fan Duel vote?
The LIV is all the Democrats have.
-
The LIV is all the Democrats have.
Not true....they also will have hundreds of thousands sharia types in country and all the millions and millions of illegal Mexicans. Oh they will also have the prison population able to vote by then too.
-
So the GOP has to suck up to the Truthers now? Dumb down our message to get the Fan Duel vote?
The LIV is all the Democrats have.
Well, the GOP has been sucking up to the amnesty crowd for quite some time now, it's not like it's a new concept for them. Supposedly, that has been for the purpose of getting votes from demographics they historically haven't.
-
IMO, this is another example of Donald Trump's marketing acumen. He fully realizes that many Republicans don't like him. He gets it.
What he also 'gets'? That there are many registered Democrats and more than a few Republicans who still insist that George W. Bush [praise be his name] was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
In short....he's grabbing more voters. While distancing himself from the Bush family, he's also gaining more voters that are still fence post sitters.
Shouldn't Trump already have a lock on the anti-establishment Republicans?
This action further alienates voters like me, and Sinkspur...which may be a given, but I suspect it also alienates voters like Musiclady(I hope I'm not putting words in her mouth) who might not be inclined to vote for Trump but will if he is the nominee.
It is unnecessary and counter productive. Why does Trump want to refight the justification for the Iraq war? I think Sinkspur hits it on the head when he says because it fractures the GOP. an even though I have Jeb pretty low on my list...Trump's attack on Dubya makes me more sympathetic to Jeb. This is not acumen...it is hubris and it will hurt Trump far more than it helps.
-
Shouldn't Trump already have a lock on the anti-establishment Republicans?
This action further alienates voters like me, and Sinkspur...which may be a given, but I suspect it also alienates voters like Musiclady(I hope I'm not putting words in her mouth) who might not be inclined to vote for Trump but will if he is the nominee.
It is unnecessary and counter productive. Why does Trump want to refight the justification for the Iraq war? I think Sinkspur hits it on the head when he says because it fractures the GOP. an even though I have Jeb pretty low on my list...Trump's attack on Dubya makes me more sympathetic to Jeb. This is not acumen...it is hubris and it will hurt Trump far more than it helps.
If we're talking primaries, Trump is already in the lead without the support of Onceler, Sinkspur, etc. He knows he's not going to win you over, but he is betting that should he be the nominee - he will get your vote - as he will mine. I think that what he is saying will catch the attention of a voting demographic that other GOP candidates would not get in the general election.
But, I think Trump's strategy might be a way of pushing Jeb's buttons - getting his goat, playing with him like a cat plays with a mouse before he kills it.
I don't agree that 9/11 was GWB's fault. Given that Al Gore made him waste those crucial first few months in office dealing with the hanging chad farce - I think that whole thing was very bad for our country and it makes me wonder if Gore was purposely doing it to make Bush less-prepared than he would have otherwise been. I put NOTHING past these people!
-
Oh, he'd have still said it. Trump hates the Bush family. If he knew your family, he'd hate them too if they were trying to compete with him in ANY way.
He was saying it long before he was running.
-
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." ~John Powell
And I would add "and rest assured, will repeated"
-
But, I think Trump's strategy might be a way of pushing Jeb's buttons - getting his goat, playing with him like a cat plays with a mouse before he kills it.
Thanx for the insightful response Alice. Enraging your opponent to force a mistake can pay off. Strategy wise, that does make some sense, and I had not considered it from that point of view. I think the reason I didn't consider it is Jeb seems like a very even tempered foe. Trump is the guy who seems thin skinned to me, but maybe there is more to Trump than I am giving credit.
-
A Donald Trump presidency would do what Obama's victory in 2008 could not do: render republicans the permanent minority party for at least a generation and ensure that the next president is as far left as Obama is.
-
Shouldn't Trump already have a lock on the anti-establishment Republicans?
This action further alienates voters like me, and Sinkspur...which may be a given, but I suspect it also alienates voters like Musiclady(I hope I'm not putting words in her mouth) who might not be inclined to vote for Trump but will if he is the nominee.
It is unnecessary and counter productive. Why does Trump want to refight the justification for the Iraq war? I think Sinkspur hits it on the head when he says because it fractures the GOP. an even though I have Jeb pretty low on my list...Trump's attack on Dubya makes me more sympathetic to Jeb. This is not acumen...it is hubris and it will hurt Trump far more than it helps.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/18/06/2C66BF9B00000578-3239510-image-m-2_1442552659112.jpg)
-
A Donald Trump presidency would do what Obama's victory in 2008 could not do: render republicans the permanent minority party for at least a generation and ensure that the next president is as far left as Obama is.
I think he renders the GOP a minority party if he wins the NOMINATION. No way he beats Hillary.
It would also be the first presidency maybe in our history in which the president has no constituency in the Congress. Republicans and Democrats would both oppose his immigration plans, his tax plans, and likely most of his foreign policy. And, if he defied them, it would be a snap to impeach and CONVICT him.
-
Trump is not a Republican. He's never built any kind of relationships with fellow Republicans, and his hair-brained policy proposals would be universally opposed. Democrats would want to taint the GOP by rendering him a do-nothing president.
It would be ugly, but the country would deserve it for electing such a fraud.
-
If we're talking primaries, Trump is already in the lead without the support of Onceler, Sinkspur, etc. He knows he's not going to win you over, but he is betting that should he be the nominee - he will get your vote - as he will mine. I think that what he is saying will catch the attention of a voting demographic that other GOP candidates would not get in the general election.
But, I think Trump's strategy might be a way of pushing Jeb's buttons - getting his goat, playing with him like a cat plays with a mouse before he kills it.
I don't agree that 9/11 was GWB's fault. Given that Al Gore made him waste those crucial first few months in office dealing with the hanging chad farce - I think that whole thing was very bad for our country and it makes me wonder if Gore was purposely doing it to make Bush less-prepared than he would have otherwise been. I put NOTHING past these people!
Besides the chad ordeal, Bush admin had to replace all keyboards and find all the furniture Bill and Hillary stole. They even stole the White House seal inside of airforce one.
-
A Donald Trump presidency would do what Obama's victory in 2008 could not do: render republicans the permanent minority party for at least a generation and ensure that the next president is as far left as Obama is.
If Trump was a true blue right fringe candidate like Goldwater I would agree. However Trump is not a right fringer, and it is unlikely the House can be lost because redistricting will not allow it. The Senate is in peril but not completely predetermined to be lost.
Have some faith in your fellow Americans sir.
We are a great country, with great people. People who voted for Reagan, and Bush...and GOP majorities in 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2012, and 2014.
Even Trump's slogan is an echo of Reagan's "Make America Great."
“I have always believed that this anointed land was set apart in an uncommon way, that a divine plan placed this great continent here between the oceans to be found by people from every corner of the Earth who had a special love of faith and freedom.”(1982) - President Ronald Reagan
Some of your posts have had a heathenish flavor...the good news is God doesn't need you to believe in him. He believes in you.
-
I think he renders the GOP a minority party if he wins the NOMINATION. No way he beats Hillary.
It would also be the first presidency maybe in our history in which the president has no constituency in the Congress. Republicans and Democrats would both oppose his immigration plans, his tax plans, and likely most of his foreign policy. And, if he defied them, it would be a snap to impeach and CONVICT him.
Good points.
-
If we're talking primaries, Trump is already in the lead without the support of Onceler, Sinkspur, etc. He knows he's not going to win you over, but he is betting that should he be the nominee - he will get your vote - as he will mine. I think that what he is saying will catch the attention of a voting demographic that other GOP candidates would not get in the general election.
But, I think Trump's strategy might be a way of pushing Jeb's buttons - getting his goat, playing with him like a cat plays with a mouse before he kills it.
I don't agree that 9/11 was GWB's fault. Given that Al Gore made him waste those crucial first few months in office dealing with the hanging chad farce - I think that whole thing was very bad for our country and it makes me wonder if Gore was purposely doing it to make Bush less-prepared than he would have otherwise been. I put NOTHING past these people!
Yes, Trump doesn't need to buy our support because he knows that we're principled team players and will vote for the GOP nominee no matter how stupid and distasteful we find him; unlike others who will only whore themselves for a few unrealistic "principles".
-
Dumb down our message to get the Fan Duel vote?
Given the opportunity without an editor, what, exactly, is your victory message?
-
Yes, Trump doesn't need to buy our support because he knows that we're principled team players and will vote for the GOP nominee no matter how stupid and distasteful we find him; unlike others who will only whore themselves for a few unrealistic "principles".
I get all your points. What I'd like to "get" is your choice for POTUS. Care to share?
-
If Trump was a true blue right fringe candidate like Goldwater I would agree. However Trump is not a right fringer, and it is unlikely the House can be lost because redistricting will not allow it. The Senate is in peril but not completely predetermined to be lost.
Have some faith in your fellow Americans sir.
We are a great country, with great people. People who voted for Reagan, and Bush...and GOP majorities in 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2012, and 2014.
Even Trump's slogan is an echo of Reagan's "Make America Great."
“I have always believed that this anointed land was set apart in an uncommon way, that a divine plan placed this great continent here between the oceans to be found by people from every corner of the Earth who had a special love of faith and freedom.”(1982) - President Ronald Reagan
Some of your posts have had a heathenish flavor...the good news is God doesn't need you to believe in him. He believes in you.
And these same people voted twice for Barack Obama. I have precious little faith in the wisdom of people who cannot see the clear difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Or the difference between Trump and people like Scott Walker or Rick Perry.
-
I get all your points. What I'd like to "get" is your choice for POTUS. Care to share?
Baloney. If I don't say "Trump" then I'll simply be labelled a hater, or a RINO, or whatever.
-
Baloney. If I don't say "Trump" then I'll simply be labelled a hater, or a RINO, or whatever.
You have made your case against Trump for POTUS. I am asking you to make your case for the candidate you prefer---go for the gold and aim for undecided voters.
If you decline to fight for the candidate of your choice then it would appear your reason for being is simply to trash Trump.
-
You have made your case against Trump for POTUS. I am asking you to make your case for the candidate you prefer---go for the gold and aim for undecided voters.
If you decline to fight for the candidate of your choice then it would appear your reason for being is simply to trash Trump.
You would, wouldn't you. In Trump-o-philia we trust.
At this point I'm not entirely sure yet. A number of the people I respected - people who have already successfully run governments - have dropped out for lack of support. I still cannot fathom why Perry or Walker are so disrespected.
I can respect Jeb Bush'es record in Florida but I am also realist to know that he will not be able to overcome his name, and the fact that the right hate him palpably simply means that I don't believe he would win. I therefore do not consider him.
Carly Fiorina has some interest for me, but I haven't decided yet.
Ben Carson is a really nice guy who is so totally out of his depth it's painful.
-
Amazing how the Trump upsets some. I wonder about him too.
He upsets me when he lies about others just because he doesn't like them.
His blaming Bush is completely irresponsible and dishonest.
The better question for you is, why is every decent conservative NOT upset by these lies about Bush??
-
Baloney. If I don't say "Trump" then I'll simply be labelled a hater, or a RINO, or whatever.
That's not true...and you know it.
We have about 50% of our regular posters against a Donald Trump nomination. Nobody's calling them haters...or "whatever".
We're adults and we know how to disagree. In the end, we're all on the same team.
-
You would, wouldn't you. In Trump-o-philia we trust.
So... to sum up: You've got nothing to offer in this primary season except hate for Donald Trump.
Got it. And thanks for confirming.
-
And these same people voted twice for Barack Obama. I have precious little faith in the wisdom of people who cannot see the clear difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Or the difference between Trump and people like Scott Walker or Rick Perry.
I hear you loud and clear. I too am frustrated.
Why did they vote for Obama? I like to think they wanted to make up for past sins. We have made good on the promise to look past skin color...now we can focus on what to do to restore America as the leader of the world.
-
So... to sum up: You've got nothing to offer in this primary season except hate for Donald Trump.
Got it. And thanks for confirming.
I modified my post after the initial post. Here's what I added:
At this point I'm not entirely sure yet. A number of the people I respected - people who have already successfully run governments - have dropped out for lack of support. I still cannot fathom why Perry or Walker are so disrespected.
I can respect Jeb Bush'es record in Florida but I am also realist enough to know that he will not be able to overcome his name, and the fact that the right hate him palpably simply means that I don't believe he would win. I therefore do not consider him.
Carly Fiorina has some interest for me, but I haven't decided yet.
Ben Carson is a really nice guy who is so totally out of his depth it's painful.
-
This lie by Trump about Bush supports the view that he is, as a friend of the Clintons, running for POTUS simply to help Hillary, and to harm whoever is the Republican nominee.
The Clintons hate Bush. As their friend, its clear that Trump hates both Jeb and GWBush.
Especially after he has spouted this deceitful swill......
-
That's not true...and you know it.
We have about 50% of our regular posters against a Donald Trump nomination. Nobody's calling them haters...or "whatever".
We're adults and we know how to disagree. In the end, we're all on the same team.
A number of people are calling us 'haters,' DC.......
-
I modified my post after the initial post.
Okay. Thanks for the added info.
-
A number of people are calling us 'haters,' DC.......
Well......not in a 'bad' way! :laugh:
-
Given the opportunity without an editor, what, exactly, is your victory message?
I'm not running.
-
I'm not running.
Too clever by half, Sink. You're not running, but you are spewing.
So... what's driving you and why should undecided voters (which until that lever is pulled--is all of us) join your team and support the candidate you support.
Is this not the purpose of the debate?
-
I modified my post after the initial post. Here's what I added:
At this point I'm not entirely sure yet. A number of the people I respected - people who have already successfully run governments - have dropped out for lack of support. I still cannot fathom why Perry or Walker are so disrespected.
I can respect Jeb Bush'es record in Florida but I am also realist enough to know that he will not be able to overcome his name, and the fact that the right hate him palpably simply means that I don't believe he would win. I therefore do not consider him.
Carly Fiorina has some interest for me, but I haven't decided yet.
Ben Carson is a really nice guy who is so totally out of his depth it's painful.
I'm not so sure Carson is as 'out of his depth' as it sometimes appears. He's just very UN-pc and doesn't back off what he says.
The way he handled himself on the View was downright remarkable. He had at least 3 drooling hyenas coming after him, and he not only won the discussion, making them look like the fools they are, but also stayed completely calm through the entire blitz against him.
He's growing, and the more I see of him, the more I respect and like him.
-
A number of people are calling us 'haters,' DC.......
I haven't seen any of that since the two "instigators" left. All they did was try to divide people to turn against each other. I think it's been fairly cordial since they left.
-
I haven't seen any of that since the two "instigators" left. All they did was try to divide people to turn against each other. I think it's been fairly cordial since they left.
Perhaps your perspective on the matter is different since you like Trump. If you honestly think he'd be a terrible President and is a Democrat, as I do, then you see things differently when the words "the haters" are posted......
-
Perhaps your perspective on the matter is different since you like Trump. If you honestly think he'd be a terrible President and is a Democrat, as I do, then you see things differently when the words "the haters" are posted......
yup
-
Perhaps your perspective on the matter is different since you like Trump. If you honestly think he'd be a terrible President and is a Democrat, as I do, then you see things differently when the words "the haters" are posted......
I understand your perspective. I like a lot of candidates other than Trump. Cruz is my first pick - but I appreciate what Trump has brought to the campaign - even though he says some pretty stupid stuff sometimes, in my opinion, he has changed this election in many positive ways. In the end, the voters will decide who will represent them in 2016. I've had to hold my vomit several times when voting for president in recent history - and whoever becomes the nominee will cause the same reaction for many people.....but in the end, anyone on our side is better than anyone on theirs. That is my opinion.
I guess when you see "the haters" you feel like I do when I see people refer to anyone that doesn't hate Trump as a "Trump worshiper".
I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't see any worship of Trump here. I see people defending him, while they readily admit to disagreeing with some of the things he says. That is hardly "worship". Most of the people here that do defend Trump in any way say that there are other candidates they really like, but they appreciate that Trump has brought things to the table that the mainstream GOP would not dare to talk about.
There are things about Trump I like and things I don't like - like most of the other candidates. That doesn't mean that I worship him and I don't know of anyone else here that does either.
Maybe both groups should think about the words they use and try not to shoot for hyperbole.
-
I understand your perspective. I like a lot of candidates other than Trump. Cruz is my first pick - but I appreciate what Trump has brought to the campaign - even though he says some pretty stupid stuff sometimes, in my opinion, he has changed this election in many positive ways. In the end, the voters will decide who will represent them in 2016. I've had to hold my vomit several times when voting for president in recent history - and whoever becomes the nominee will cause the same reaction for many people.....but in the end, anyone on our side is better than anyone on theirs. That is my opinion.
I guess when you see "the haters" you feel like I do when I see people refer to anyone that doesn't hate Trump as a "Trump worshiper".
I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't see any worship of Trump here. I see people defending him, while they readily admit to disagreeing with some of the things he says. That is hardly "worship". Most of the people here that do defend Trump in any way say that there are other candidates they really like, but they appreciate that Trump has brought things to the table that the mainstream GOP would not dare to talk about.
There are things about Trump I like and things I don't like - like most of the other candidates. That doesn't mean that I worship him and I don't know of anyone else here that does either.
Maybe both groups should think about the words they use and try not to shoot for hyperbole.
Let me put it this way....... I have seen some people on this forum react in what I would call an extreme fashion to criticisms of Trump. I go back to what I said about that young woman in my family who said, "Don't say anything bad about Obama." She didn't want to hear any criticism, legitimate or not, because she wanted to vote for him without knowing the truth about him.
I have sensed some of the same response here. It doesn't matter if he's a liberal. It doesn't matter if he supports eminent domain. It doesn't matter if he is rude and nasty to women or anyone else. He's a 'street fighter' and that makes all his flaws irrelevant, I guess.
Trump is next to the bottom on my list. Lindsay Graham is at the bottom. But I don't want another egotistical, narcissistic adolescent, thin-skinned bully in the Oval Office, and that is exactly what I see in Trump. Now, my using those adjectives to describe Trump will have some people calling me a 'hater' but I believe every one of them describes his personality flaws, which for me, overwhelm any positives he may have.
OF COURSE I would vote for him rather than Hillary, but I am praying that I never have to make that choice.
America, with all its flaws, deserves far better than Donald Trump.
-
Let me put it this way....... I have seen some people on this forum react in what I would call an extreme fashion to criticisms of Trump. I go back to what I said about that young woman in my family who said, "Don't say anything bad about Obama." She didn't want to hear any criticism, legitimate or not, because she wanted to vote for him without knowing the truth about him.
I have sensed some of the same response here. It doesn't matter if he's a liberal. It doesn't matter if he supports eminent domain. It doesn't matter if he is rude and nasty to women or anyone else. He's a 'street fighter' and that makes all his flaws irrelevant, I guess.
Trump is next to the bottom on my list. Lindsay Graham is at the bottom. But I don't want another egotistical, narcissistic adolescent, thin-skinned bully in the Oval Office, and that is exactly what I see in Trump. Now, my using those adjectives to describe Trump will have some people calling me a 'hater' but I believe every one of them describes his personality flaws, which for me, overwhelm any positives he may have.
OF COURSE I would vote for him rather than Hillary, but I am praying that I never have to make that choice.
America, with all its flaws, deserves far better than Donald Trump.
You, along with many others, have certainly made your feelings about Trump pretty clear. Respect your opinion. I'll be curious to see who calls you a "hater" now.
-
Trump is trying to SLANDER Bush. I'm putting you on ignore since you seem to think Trump has a point in blaming Bush for 9/11.
Is there anything this Democrat-in-disguise can say that you disagree with? I can't believe some of you are that dumb!
oooohhhh...putting me on ignore Oh dear! I have all along stated that I am not a Trump supporter, but I am definitely not a Bush supporter either. I never said I "blamed" Bush for 9-11, I simply made the comment that 9-11 happened on his watch. There is no disputing that. This country was attacked; therefore we weren't safe. We still aren't safe and those in Congress and our current "Liar in Chief" stand idly by and do nothing! I'm not disputing the "should have's" or "could haves" with Bush. I am tired of the OBREP' and I am tired (as are many) of having to elect one of the "dynasties". We certainly don't need another Bush and we sure as hell don't need another Clinton. BOTH will be a disaster. This country cannot afford to continue on our current path of destruction. I am entitled to my opinion. I don't think Trump is the best that the GOP has to offer, but I'll pull the lever for him over Bush any day.
-
You, along with many others, have certainly made your feelings about Trump pretty clear. Respect your opinion. I'll be curious to see who calls you a "hater" now.
I'll be watching..... that said, it's the 1st word that comes to mind when responding to "those people" that never have a positive thing to say about him.
What word would they prefer? :shrug: disliker? unliker? nonliker?
Nonsense.
When you read a dozen negative posts in here from those not enamored with Mr. Trump, "hater" is a good collective description of the 'club'.
-
I'll be watching..... that said, it's the 1st word that comes to mind when responding to "those people" that never have a positive thing to say about him.
What word would they prefer? :shrug: disliker? unliker? nonliker?
Nonsense.
When you read a dozen negative posts in here from those not enamored with Mr. Trump, "hater" is a good collective description of the 'club'.
I have actually seen some people here say that they "hate" Trump.
I "hate" Obama - proud to be an Obama hater - it's not a slur to me, but a compliment!
-
Let me put it this way....... I have seen some people on this forum react in what I would call an extreme fashion to criticisms of Trump. I go back to what I said about that young woman in my family who said, "Don't say anything bad about Obama." She didn't want to hear any criticism, legitimate or not, because she wanted to vote for him without knowing the truth about him.
I have sensed some of the same response here. It doesn't matter if he's a liberal. It doesn't matter if he supports eminent domain. It doesn't matter if he is rude and nasty to women or anyone else. He's a 'street fighter' and that makes all his flaws irrelevant, I guess.
Trump is next to the bottom on my list. Lindsay Graham is at the bottom. But I don't want another egotistical, narcissistic adolescent, thin-skinned bully in the Oval Office, and that is exactly what I see in Trump. Now, my using those adjectives to describe Trump will have some people calling me a 'hater' but I believe every one of them describes his personality flaws, which for me, overwhelm any positives he may have.
OF COURSE I would vote for him rather than Hillary, but I am praying that I never have to make that choice.
America, with all its flaws, deserves far better than Donald Trump.
Yes. Agreed. Trump is egotistical; not so sure yet about narcissistic. I do see Trump with a lot of backbone and he doesn't back down. I see in him his ability to act upon what he says. Do I think he's the best that the GOP has going for them? No. We have a whole lot of great candidates, who IMHO without Trump taking the head from the media; most of them would have been destroyed by now. He saw this "huge" discontent from the voting base with the establishment and he seized the moment. I do see in him a lot of patriotism. However, the troubling issue(s) I have was him not willing from the beginning to support other GOP candidates and not to run 3rd party. His comments on eminent domain very much concern me. Yes he is a businessman and I do believe he would make some great strides in turning our economy around. I am just skeptical that Trump will act in the best interest of the country as a whole and adhere to the Constitution and not sidestep Congress and do what Trump wants to do. He has attacked most of his opponents, while it would seem he should be spending more time going after the socialist and the criminal. IMHO he will be better than Bush, Graham, Christie or Carson.
-
I'll be watching..... that said, it's the 1st word that comes to mind when responding to "those people" that never have a positive thing to say about him.
What word would they prefer? :shrug: disliker? unliker? nonliker?
Nonsense.
When you read a dozen negative posts in here from those not enamored with Mr. Trump, "hater" is a good collective description of the 'club'.
It is a grievous insult to either call me a 'hater' or to accuse me of being in any form of 'club.'
But you have illustrated what I am talking about.
An otherwise very reasonable person is so personally attached to Trump that you don't seem to be able to handle dealing with those of us who find him unpresidential with multiple personality flaws that disqualify him from the highest office in the land.
I don't hate him now any more than I hated him before (not at all). He just is, IMO, exactly what I said...
Completely unqualified in any way to be President.
-
You, along with many others, have certainly made your feelings about Trump pretty clear. Respect your opinion. I'll be curious to see who calls you a "hater" now.
I have avoided Trump threads more than I have participated on them because I respect some of the people who seem to love him and I strongly disagree with some of those who really do hate him.
The problem has been that some of his supporters are already angry at his strongest critics and can't deal with the rest of us who have legitimate reason not to respect him.
btw, having no respect for the man is not hatred. Hatred is a very strong word, and it is offensive to have it used wrongly against me.
-
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12108998_870521909721705_4050407325325490284_n.jpg?oh=12c385b73af6315cdfa32772ccb97fa1&oe=56C78443)
-
I'll be watching..... that said, it's the 1st word that comes to mind when responding to "those people" that never have a positive thing to say about him.
What word would they prefer? :shrug: disliker? unliker? nonliker?
Nonsense.
When you read a dozen negative posts in here from those not enamored with Mr. Trump, "hater" is a good collective description of the 'club'.
I wear the "Trump hater" moniker with pride. He's pulling a fast one on the suckers who support him. He's never been a Republican and he's not one now, with his silly views on taxation, eminent domain, and the MIddle East.
I can state unequivocally that I will never vote for Trump, even if he's the nominee. Can't vote for an unqualified bully for president. I'll just skip over the presidential box on election day.
-
I have avoided Trump threads more than I have participated on them because I respect some of the people who seem to love him and I strongly disagree with some of those who really do hate him.
The problem has been that some of his supporters are already angry at his strongest critics and can't deal with the rest of us who have legitimate reason not to respect him.
btw, having no respect for the man is not hatred. Hatred is a very strong word, and it is offensive to have it used wrongly against me.
I don't think anyone has referred to you specifically as regards to this. I have seen some here say they hate Donald Trump - for those people, I don't see why they should feel insulted to be called a hater - when it comes to Trump. I understand that a lot of people don't hate anyone, as they feel it is un-Christian. But I say loud and proud that I hate Barack Obama - call me an Obama hater and I will enthusiastically agree!
I don't think anyone is attacking you personally musiclady and I'm sorry if you think I have. I have the utmost respect for you and think you are a good person that is pretty darned smart too.
(By the way, I don't "love" Donald Trump but I do like a lot of things he is doing - he is stirring things up and that is something that is needed right now.)
-
I have avoided Trump threads more than I have participated on them because I respect some of the people who seem to love him and I strongly disagree with some of those who really do hate him.
The problem has been that some of his supporters are already angry at his strongest critics and can't deal with the rest of us who have legitimate reason not to respect him.
btw, having no respect for the man is not hatred. Hatred is a very strong word, and it is offensive to have it used wrongly against me.
Respect has to be earned..
-
I wear the "Trump hater" moniker with pride. He's pulling a fast one on the suckers who support him. He's never been a Republican and he's not one now, with his silly views on taxation, eminent domain, and the MIddle East.
I can state unequivocally that I will never vote for Trump, even if he's the nominee. Can't vote for an unqualified bully for president. I'll just skip over the presidential box on election day.
You have the right to your opinion Sink.
Just my opinion though, if you skip voting for president it's just one less vote that the Democrat has to overcome, so it makes it easier for them to win.
-
You have the right to your opinion Sink.
Just my opinion though, if you skip voting for president it's just one less vote that the Democrat has to overcome, so it makes it easier for them to win.
If Trump is our nominee, my little ole vote will be lost in the massive tsunami that will drown the GOP's hopes for the presidency. It will be worse than Goldwater.
-
I don't want to vote for Jeb Bush either...Lord I don't want to because it just means four more years of limp-wristed politically-correct Republicans cowering when a Democrat speaks and rolling over when a Democrat wants something...a continuation of the last 10 years. But if the Republicans are insane enough...or corrupt enough...to nominate another Bush or even another different insider, I'll vote for them. Again.
-
It is a grievous insult to either call me a 'hater' or to accuse me of being in any form of 'club.'
But you have illustrated what I am talking about.
An otherwise very reasonable person is so personally attached to Trump that you don't seem to be able to handle dealing with those of us who find him unpresidential with multiple personality flaws that disqualify him from the highest office in the land.
I don't hate him now any more than I hated him before (not at all). He just is, IMO, exactly what I said...
Completely unqualified in any way to be President.
LOL! You're absolutely the LAST person I would put in that 'club'.
I was referring to those that never run out of denigrating adjectives with which to describe him...and at the same time insult and demean those of us that recognize his uniqueness in a positive light.
That's definitely not you, musiclady. :laugh:
-
I don't want to vote for Jeb Bush either...Lord I don't want to because it just means four more years of limp-wristed politically-correct Republicans cowering when a Democrat speaks and rolling over when a Democrat wants something...a continuation of the last 10 years. But if the Republicans are insane enough...or corrupt enough...to nominate another Bush or even another different insider, I'll vote for them. Again.
What makes you think that Jeb is going to win??
-
I don't want to vote for Jeb Bush either...Lord I don't want to because it just means four more years of limp-wristed politically-correct Republicans cowering when a Democrat speaks and rolling over when a Democrat wants something...a continuation of the last 10 years. But if the Republicans are insane enough...or corrupt enough...to nominate another Bush or even another different insider, I'll vote for them. Again.
I'm glad we're on the same team in the point where it matters.
-
What makes you think that Jeb is going to win??
I don't think he is, necessarily, but I do think that he is the darling of the country-club establishment. They want him over any candidate certainly. It is just that of any in the top 6 right now, he would be my last choice. But even my last choice - that I'd dread to see nominated - would get my one lousy vote if that's what happened.
-
I actually think this was a brilliant move on Trump's part. He again forces Jeb Bush into a politically defensive posture, and in politics being on defense is rarely a good place to be. He also tarnishes Jeb with his brother's legacy, so as Jeb defends his brother it positions Jeb as "just another Bush" even if most people agree the attack is somewhat unfair.
From Trump's point of view, Jeb is out there talking about how GWB "kept the country safe" so most people will think pointing out 9/11 happened on GWB's watch is "fair," even if they think GWB was not responsible for 9/11. Also, if this primary is going to be about whether we as a party should continue to defend the Bush legacy to the greater electorate, I think Trump wins that argument hands down, and Trump may be the only candidate in the race with the cajones to attack the Bush legacy so unabashedly. So bottom line: another brilliant move by Trump that keeps the media gocus on him and helps him in his quest for the nomination.
Every day that Trump is talked about to the exclusion of Carson, Cruz, Rubio et al is a day closer to the a Trump nomination, unless Trump says or does something so outrageous that he shoots his own candidacy down. That last scenario seems more likely to me than someone else stepping up to beat him.
-
It is a grievous insult to either call me a 'hater' or to accuse me of being in any form of 'club.'
But you have illustrated what I am talking about.
An otherwise very reasonable person is so personally attached to Trump that you don't seem to be able to handle dealing with those of us who find him unpresidential with multiple personality flaws that disqualify him from the highest office in the land.
I don't hate him now any more than I hated him before (not at all). He just is, IMO, exactly what I said...
Completely unqualified in any way to be President.
What you said! Absolutely!
-
* * *
Every day that Trump is talked about to the exclusion of Carson, Cruz, Rubio et al is a day closer to the a Trump nomination, unless Trump says or does something so outrageous that he shoots his own candidacy down. That last scenario seems more likely to me than someone else stepping up to beat him.
And that is why I despair of the republicans and of the country. I find it absurd that at this juncture the republicans cannot find someone who can explain, in plain English, and in positive terms, why republican virtues are the virtues of the country, and instead are front-running a loudmouth who truly is a RINO - someone who prefers single-payor healthcare (i.e., Obamacare) and crony capitalism (i.e., using eminent domain to seize private residences and hand them over to private real estate developers) - and whose contributions are largely negative: anti-immigrant, anti-"the rich" (hard enough to believe, but he's running parallel to Clinton on taxing "the rich"), and nothing positive.
-
And that is why I despair of the republicans and of the country. I find it absurd that at this juncture the republicans cannot find someone who can explain, in plain English, and in positive terms, why republican virtues are the virtues of the country, and instead are front-running a loudmouth who truly is a RINO - someone who prefers single-payor healthcare (i.e., Obamacare) and crony capitalism (i.e., using eminent domain to seize private residences and hand them over to private real estate developers) - and whose contributions are largely negative: anti-immigrant, anti-"the rich" (hard enough to believe, but he's running parallel to Clinton on taxing "the rich"), and nothing positive.
It IS being done...on a daily basis.
It's just that the person speaking can't look or sound like Mr. Peepers.
-
Trump would be the first president elected in the modern age with no constituency in Congress. His espousal of Democrat policies would mean he'd have little support in a GOP Congress, from either Republicans or Democrats.
-
It IS being done...on a daily basis.
It's just that the person speaking can't look or sound like Mr. Peepers.
Raising taxes, single-payer healthcare, and the absurd notion he's going to send 12 million people south of the border in two years.
Trump is a Democrat. When are you going to realize that?
-
Raising taxes, single-payer healthcare, and the absurd notion he's going to send 12 million people south of the border in two years.
Trump is a Democrat. When are you going to realize that?
Don't forget he will do things by executive action but it is OK, just as long as our person does it.
-
Raising taxes, single-payer healthcare, and the absurd notion he's going to send 12 million people south of the border in two years.
Trump is a Democrat. When are you going to realize that?
If Trump is indeed a Democrat, he has no home in their Party today. Today, they're Socialists and Commies.
And when you look at the eunuchs leading the Republicans...it's only natural for him to fill that vacuum in leadership.
-
Trump would be the first president elected in the modern age with no constituency in Congress. His espousal of Democrat policies would mean he'd have little support in a GOP Congress, from either Republicans or Democrats.
Which is the point I've been making for months in here. He'll be kept in check.
-
Don't forget he will do things by executive action but it is OK, just as long as our person does it.
He can't do any of the major things he wants to do by executive action. And, remember, he would be on s short leash with Congress. They'll run his ass out of office the first time he steps out of line.
-
He can't do any of the major things he wants to do by executive action. And, remember, he would be on s short leash with Congress. They'll run his ass out of office the first time he steps out of line.
Great point. Obama can rely on the rats to carry his water. Trump has no built in congressional support.
-
Great point. Obama can rely on the rats to carry his water. Trump has no built in congressional support.
I've made that point here more than a dozen times.
As Casey Stengel said..."You can look it up!"
But, at least you guys are speaking in terms of a 'President Trump' today....instead of claiming he has no chance..... :laugh:
-
I've made that point here more than a dozen times.
As Casey Stengel said..."You can look it up!"
But, at least you guys are speaking in terms of a 'President Trump' today....instead of claiming he has no chance..... :laugh:
It's all hypothetical, DC. Donald Trump beats Hillary Clinton in a national election only in the wet dreams of his supporters.
Why elect the sonofabitch if he's not going to be able to DO anything?
-
It's all hypothetical, DC. Donald Trump beats Hillary Clinton in a national election only in the wet dreams of his supporters.
Why elect the sonofabitch if he's not going to be able to DO anything?
I missed the memo regarding the guaranteed outcome.
But to answer your hypothetical question....you elect him to keep the Socialists out of the White House.
-
I've made that point here more than a dozen times.
You have. I have not felt compelled to argue against your point that Trump will be ineffective.
But, at least you guys are speaking in terms of a 'President Trump' today....instead of claiming he has no chance..... :laugh:
I was wrong. Call the neighbors, wake the kids, and mark it on the calendars. I thought Trump would fade as reality set in. I still think there is time for Republicans to wake up, but like Governor Walker I too fear that Trump could win.
Regardless of how ineffective he might be, President Trump is now a very concrete nightmare for me, perhaps more terrifying than President Hillary or Sanders.
not because of what President Trump may do...but because what it says about the GOP voters.
-
Oceander wrote above:
[[ A Donald Trump presidency would do what Obama's victory in 2008 could not do: render republicans the permanent minority party for at least a generation and ensure that the next president is as far left as Obama is. ]]
Hmmmmmmmmm....
Lemmmeeeesssseeee here.....
So... you're sayin' that if Trump wins the presidency as a Republican -- something that the Pubbies haven't been doin' very well for the past couple of decades, G.W. notwithstanding... that it's going to put the Pubbies into the minority?
Somethin' about that logic just doesn't seem kosher to me.
But hey -- you're gonna vote for him anyway, RIGHT...?
I'd love to be the fly on the wall when you step into the voting booth, hating him so much, but determined to mark the ballot for him anyway. Is your face going to be contorted as your conscience grapples with the ballot pen?
Fortunately, I won't have to do that!
-
It IS being done...on a daily basis.
It's just that the person speaking can't look or sound like Mr. Peepers.
:silly:
Donald Trump isn't doing a damned thing other than ginning up hatred and class division.
And he's turning you into the world's biggest sucker because you have been thoroughly blinded to what his actual values are.
When you go to measure the worth of a man (or a woman), you pay attention to what they do, not what they say, and you pay attention to what they say only when they aren't in a position to spin it for the reason its being tested. This is what you have if you actually pay attention to what Donald Trump really believes, based on his actions, and on what he's said when he wasn't running for nomination: you have a big-state, crony capitalist whose policy preferences are decidedly left of center.
I am simply aghast at how many republicans/conservatives have by now shown themselves to be utterly stupid, to be intellectually vacuous cows on a par with the idiots who voted for Obama in 2012.
Do I detest Trump? Yes, I do. I detest him because not only is he a statist crony capitalist whose real policy preferences tend toward big government that exercises its power for the benefit of the politically-connected oligopoly, but because he's a liar and a hypocrite over and above jack-asses like Sanders who at least has the decency to admit that he's a socialist.
-
I missed the memo regarding the guaranteed outcome.
But to answer your hypothetical question....you elect him to keep the Socialists out of the White House.
Single payer health care and increasing taxes on the wealthy isn't socialism?
I won't vote for Trump. Ever. In any election.
-
Oceander wrote above:
[[ A Donald Trump presidency would do what Obama's victory in 2008 could not do: render republicans the permanent minority party for at least a generation and ensure that the next president is as far left as Obama is. ]]
Hmmmmmmmmm....
Lemmmeeeesssseeee here.....
So... you're sayin' that if Trump wins the presidency as a Republican -- something that the Pubbies haven't been doin' very well for the past couple of decades, G.W. notwithstanding... that it's going to put the Pubbies into the minority?
Somethin' about that logic just doesn't seem kosher to me.
But hey -- you're gonna vote for him anyway, RIGHT...?
I'd love to be the fly on the wall when you step into the voting booth, hating him so much, but determined to mark the ballot for him anyway. Is your face going to be contorted as your conscience grapples with the ballot pen?
Fortunately, I won't have to do that!
Which simply shows why you're an untrustable fair weather friend; someone to be less trusted than one's enemies, who can at least be trusted to consistently want to kill you.
I will vote for Trump if he is the GOP nominee for the general election because I am a team player and a realist and I realize that there are only two options in this election (and will only be so for both the short and medium term): democrat or republican, or liberal or republican, if you prefer. And I realize that there is a certain zero-sum logic to politics and elections (a logic that doesn't apply to economics, contra liberals), which means that, as an old song went (to paraphrase): even if you choose not to vote, you still have cast a vote, and if you do not cast a vote against Hillary Clinton (or whatever other criminal the DNC runs), then you have as good as cast a vote for her; and if you cast a vote for a third party, then you have as good as cast a vote for Hillary Clinton (or whatever other criminal the DNC runs).
I will vote for Trump because as stupid and detestable as he is, he is at least not Hillary Clinton (or whatever other criminal the DNC will run).
The only thing you will see on my face in the polling booth if Trump is the GOP nominee is one of resignation, knowing full well that he will lose, that we will have another 8 years, at least, of a hardcore leftist DNC in the White House, and that Trump will almost certainly have alienated a large number of votes that will be crucial to maintaining GOP control of Congress (or, at the least, to keeping it out of the control of the DNC).
So, my fair weather friend, you can trust me to vote for your Trump if he is the GOP nominee which, I am afraid, is far more than I can say of you should your Trump not be the nominee.
-
I missed the memo regarding the guaranteed outcome.
But to answer your hypothetical question....you elect him to keep the Socialists out of the White House.
Missing the obvious seems to be becoming a disappointingly habitual vice ...
-
Is your face going to be contorted as your conscience grapples with the ballot pen
probably not anymore so than when I voted for Dole, Bush, McCain, or Romney...for me the difference will be befuddlement(thanx EC) that conservatives forced me to vote for this moderate candidate.
-
probably not anymore so than when I voted for Dole, Bush, McCain, or Romney...for me the difference will be befuddlement(thanx EC) that conservatives forced me to vote for this moderate candidate.
good point.
-
:silly:
Donald Trump isn't doing a damned thing other than ginning up hatred and class division.
And he's turning you into the world's biggest sucker because you have been thoroughly blinded to what his actual values are.
When you go to measure the worth of a man (or a woman), you pay attention to what they do, not what they say, and you pay attention to what they say only when they aren't in a position to spin it for the reason its being tested. This is what you have if you actually pay attention to what Donald Trump really believes, based on his actions, and on what he's said when he wasn't running for nomination: you have a big-state, crony capitalist whose policy preferences are decidedly left of center.
I am simply aghast at how many republicans/conservatives have by now shown themselves to be utterly stupid, to be intellectually vacuous cows on a par with the idiots who voted for Obama in 2012.
Do I detest Trump? Yes, I do. I detest him because not only is he a statist crony capitalist whose real policy preferences tend toward big government that exercises its power for the benefit of the politically-connected oligopoly, but because he's a liar and a hypocrite over and above jack-asses like Sanders who at least has the decency to admit that he's a socialist.
Wow. I just want to second everything you said here. Trump is big government, squared. He wants to use his imperial power to tax, to force people out of their homes, to impose single payer healthcare.
His followers are dumbasses. They're mad, but they're burying their objectivity because Trump trashes people they hate.
-
mass wrote above:
[[ Every day that Trump is talked about to the exclusion of Carson, Cruz, Rubio et al is a day closer to the a Trump nomination, unless Trump says or does something so outrageous that he shoots his own candidacy down. That last scenario seems more likely to me than someone else stepping up to beat him. ]]
A most wise comment.
Between now and nomination day, the only person that can stop Donald Trump is.... Donald Trump.
I say this as an observer, not particularly as a supporter.
I sense that most posters in this forum sense this as well.
The comments they post are a reflection as to how they regard the reality they seem looming up on the horizon before them...
-
:silly:
Donald Trump isn't doing a damned thing other than ginning up hatred and class division.
And he's turning you into the world's biggest sucker because you have been thoroughly blinded to what his actual values are.
When you go to measure the worth of a man (or a woman), you pay attention to what they do, not what they say, and you pay attention to what they say only when they aren't in a position to spin it for the reason its being tested. This is what you have if you actually pay attention to what Donald Trump really believes, based on his actions, and on what he's said when he wasn't running for nomination: you have a big-state, crony capitalist whose policy preferences are decidedly left of center.
I am simply aghast at how many republicans/conservatives have by now shown themselves to be utterly stupid, to be intellectually vacuous cows on a par with the idiots who voted for Obama in 2012.
Do I detest Trump? Yes, I do. I detest him because not only is he a statist crony capitalist whose real policy preferences tend toward big government that exercises its power for the benefit of the politically-connected oligopoly, but because he's a liar and a hypocrite over and above jack-asses like Sanders who at least has the decency to admit that he's a socialist.
Great post.
-
sinkspur wrote above:
[[ Trump would be the first president elected in the modern age with no constituency in Congress. ]]
Considering the behavior of the current Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who would WANT THEM as "one's constituency" ????
-
mass wrote above:
[[ Every day that Trump is talked about to the exclusion of Carson, Cruz, Rubio et al is a day closer to the a Trump nomination, unless Trump says or does something so outrageous that he shoots his own candidacy down. That last scenario seems more likely to me than someone else stepping up to beat him. ]]
A most wise comment.
Between now and nomination day, the only person that can stop Donald Trump is.... Donald Trump.
I say this as an observer, not particularly as a supporter.
I sense that most posters in this forum sense this as well.
The comments they post are a reflection as to how they regard the reality they seem looming up on the horizon before them...
And that is why I have no faith in republicans - especially conservatives - nor in the American people in general. The same stupid f*cking idiots who elected Obama will be the same f*cking stupid idiots who elect Trump.
It's not a matter of not being able to grasp reality, it's a matter of not being willing to settle for demagoguery and mobocracy just because the mob of the day calls itself conservative.
I can deal with Trump being the GOP nominee - as I have said repeatedly, I am not an untrustworthy fair weather friend and will vote for him if he is the GOP nominee for the general election - and it is precisely that willingness to seize the sharp end of the sword, notwithstanding the wounds, that gives me the right to call out the whole truth to the rest of you, no matter how much of a Cassandra that makes me.
-
sinkspur wrote above:
[[ Trump would be the first president elected in the modern age with no constituency in Congress. ]]
Considering the behavior of the current Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who would WANT THEM as "one's constituency" ????
Uh, he can't get any of his policies enacted if Congress doesn't go along. No tax increases, no single payer health care, no driving 12 million illegals out of the country in two years.
Trump's a chump. If he were to get elected, he wouldn't get a damned thing he wants enacted into law.
-
Between now and nomination day, the only person that can stop Donald Trump is.... Donald Trump.
I wonder is Trump in charge of his own destiny? He speaks with such a fractured cadence and structure that the meaning can be easily misinterpreted. Perhaps that is by design, but it won't/shouldn't last as the spotlight focuses tighter upon him.
-
sinkspur wrote above:
[[ Trump would be the first president elected in the modern age with no constituency in Congress. ]]
Considering the behavior of the current Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who would WANT THEM as "one's constituency" ????
Try putting it in real terms: without any sort of a constituency in Congress, how does a president protect himself or herself from being, for example, impeached? Or from being simply ignored and his/her policy aims ignored? Without a constituency in Congress, the only thing the president can do is veto - or just use executive orders a la Obama - and eventually with enough vetoes he or she will have alienated a sufficient number of members from both parties that they may start joining up against that president.
In other words, you complain about how chummy the GOP in the Congress seem to get with democrats/liberals, but the person you seem to prefer as president - Trump - would simply drive them further together.
-
Oceander wrote above:
[[ And I realize that there is a certain zero-sum logic to politics and elections (a logic that doesn't apply to economics, contra liberals), which means that, as an old song went (to paraphrase): even if you choose not to vote, you still have cast a vote, and if you do not cast a vote against Hillary Clinton (or whatever other criminal the DNC runs), then you have as good as cast a vote for her; ]]
Doesn't apply to me, my friend.
My vote in the election for president will count for nothing.
I could vote Republican.
I could vote third party.
I could even vote democrat (I'd just as soon die first).
Won't make a bit of difference insofar as the outcome is concerned.
That's pre-ordained here.
An interesting historical tidbit:
In my state, in the 2006 Senatorial election, the "Republican" candidate won 10% of the votes cast. TEN percent.
(Like Yogi Berra said, "you can look it up!")
Aside:
I -did- vote for the Republican in that election, of course.
I always vote(d) for the Republican candidates.
And back then, I thought he got a higher number than that, around 16-17%.
But, before I posted this, I looked it up!
-
His followers are dumbasses. They're mad, but they're burying their objectivity because Trump trashes people they hate.
If his supporters have lost their philosophical objectivity (which I agree in many cases they have), it seems to me many of his detractors have lost a great deal of their objectivity in terms of evaluating Trump's impact on the political landscape, his likelihood of winning, and whether he might actually have the capability to be a great executive (his political philosophy notwithstanding).
-
Oceander wrote above:
[[ And I realize that there is a certain zero-sum logic to politics and elections (a logic that doesn't apply to economics, contra liberals), which means that, as an old song went (to paraphrase): even if you choose not to vote, you still have cast a vote, and if you do not cast a vote against Hillary Clinton (or whatever other criminal the DNC runs), then you have as good as cast a vote for her; ]]
Doesn't apply to me, my friend.
My vote in the election for president will count for nothing.
I could vote Republican.
I could vote third party.
I could even vote democrat (I'd just as soon die first).
Won't make a bit of difference insofar as the outcome is concerned.
That's pre-ordained here.
An interesting historical tidbit:
In my state, in the 2006 Senatorial election, the "Republican" candidate won 10% of the votes cast. TEN percent.
(Like Yogi Berra said, "you can look it up!")
Aside:
I -did- vote for the Republican in that election, of course.
I always vote(d) for the Republican candidates.
And back then, I thought he got a higher number than that, around 16-17%.
But, before I posted this, I looked it up!
So you're just going for the angry angst thing here, then. Your ball won't be played in the game, so you're just going to make yourself feel important by doing whatever you can to eff things up. Wow. You're really principled there.
-
Come on now...Trumps followers are not dumb asses...haven't we had enough of that the last few days..
-
Once-Ler wrote above:
[[ I wonder is Trump in charge of his own destiny? He speaks with such a fractured cadence and structure that the meaning can be easily misinterpreted. Perhaps that is by design, but it won't/shouldn't last as the spotlight focuses tighter upon him. ]]
That's a very thoughtful comment.
But, it begs the question:
WHO could be behind Mr. Trump, pulling "his strings"?
This is obvious with obama.
But with Trump --- who...?
-
Uh, he can't get any of his policies enacted if Congress doesn't go along. No tax increases, no single payer health care, no driving 12 million illegals out of the country in two years.
Trump's a chump. If he were to get elected, he wouldn't get a damned thing he wants enacted into law.
The laws are already in place to deport illegals, the government already gets tax increases automatically as most salaries increase so taxes go up accordingly.
If he proposes things the people want and a republican congress fails to act, who will get blamed?
-
Come on now...Trumps followers are not dumb asses...haven't we had enough of that the last few days..
OK boss. I won't refer to any of Trump's followers as dumbasses anymore.
-
If his supporters have lost their philosophical objectivity (which I agree in many cases they have), it seems to me many of his detractors have lost a great deal of their objectivity in terms of evaluating Trump's impact on the political landscape, his likelihood of winning, and whether he might actually have the capability to be a great executive (his political philosophy notwithstanding).
Evaluating Trump's likelihood of winning is not that difficult: look past the gorilla-chest-thumping of the wanna-be alpha males in the angry-white-conservative coterie, and you see Trump seriously alienating a lot of the noncommitted voters any candidate must have in order to win the election. And that should not surprise anyone because when you run an essentially negative campaign, the question is not how many unconvinced voters will you convince to join you, but how many will you scare into the arms of your opponent. Too many people really don't seem to understand, for example, exactly what a xenophobe like Trump sounds like to the ears of hispanic Americans - both the native born and the legally admitted/naturalized - because they are able to think through the necessary mechanics of how his xenophobia will be put into place: federal immigration police will have very large incentive to treat every person who even slightly smells like a "mexican" as presumptively an illegal and to stop them and demand proof of their right to be in the country; and those who are citizens, particularly native-born, have a very real fear that they may be arrested simply because they cannot prove what amounts to proving a negative - that they are in fact citizens who are entitled to be in the US and to be left alone. First off, for those of you who were born here, how many of you carry a certified copy of your birth certificate with you? As a practical matter that's the only way you can prove your right to be in the US as a native-born citizen because a driver's license won't cut it because you don't have to prove citizenship to get one (in fact, illegals can get them with ease). Second, for those of you who were naturalized, how many of you carry certified copies of your naturalization papers? As a practical matter that's the only way you can prove your right to be in the US as a naturalized citizen because, as pointed out above, a driver's license won't cut it.
So, you have on the one hand a leftist in the DNC who will not help get the economy moving, and on the other hand you have a xenophobe in the GOP who is going to target you for intrusive law enforcement simply because you look hispanic, or have an hispanic last name. Who are you going to vote for?
-
Come on now...Trumps followers are not dumb asses...haven't we had enough of that the last few days..
If they wish to insist on labeling us as "haters" then they'll just have to put up with the less incendiary label of dumbass.
-
The laws are already in place to deport illegals, the government already gets tax increases automatically as most salaries increase so taxes go up accordingly.
If he proposes things the people want and a republican congress fails to act, who will get blamed?
American voters don't want tax increases. Nor do they want single payer healthcare.
A GOP Congress wouldn't even take up bills that increase taxes or enact singlepayer healthcare. And the country would breathe a sigh of relief.
-
Once-Ler wrote above:
[[ I wonder is Trump in charge of his own destiny? He speaks with such a fractured cadence and structure that the meaning can be easily misinterpreted. Perhaps that is by design, but it won't/shouldn't last as the spotlight focuses tighter upon him. ]]
That's a very thoughtful comment.
But, it begs the question:
WHO could be behind Mr. Trump, pulling "his strings"?
This is obvious with obama.
But with Trump --- who...?
Considering his very long history of statements and actions with clear political implications, the DNC; that ought to be pretty obvious as well.
-
American voters don't want tax increases. Nor do they want single payer healthcare.
A GOP Congress wouldn't even take up bills that increase taxes or enact singlepayer healthcare. And the country would breathe a sigh of relief.
So, the checks and balances work?
-
Oceander wrote above:
[[ So you're just going for the angry angst thing here, then. Your ball won't be played in the game, so you're just going to make yourself feel important by doing whatever you can to eff things up. Wow. You're really principled there. ]]
If "one's ball won't be played in the game", then why bother going to the game?
That's posed as a serious question.
Why be forced to be part of "a game" in which you've been marginalized to the point where you no longer have any ability to influence the outcome?
Why do you think I'm going to feel "important" about it?
Quite the opposite, "the game" (at least here) is no longer worth my effort because I can't change "the outcome" in any way (at least in the contests for president, House, Senate).
I will continue to "play the game" in state and local contests.
Got November 3rd on my appointments calendar to vote.
I'll be there.
Aside (with a repeat of what I wrote above):
"Why be forced to be part of "a game" in which you've been marginalized to the point where you no longer have any ability to influence the outcome?"
This is EXACTLY why "outsiders" like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are doing so well this time around -- because there are MILLIONS of Americans whose "ball" ain't bein' played in the game any more!
-
If his supporters have lost their philosophical objectivity (which I agree in many cases they have), it seems to me many of his detractors have lost a great deal of their objectivity in terms of evaluating Trump's impact on the political landscape, his likelihood of winning, and whether he might actually have the capability to be a great executive (his political philosophy notwithstanding).
I agree. I know I am unhealthy obsessed with Trump to such a point that I have taken breaks from this forum because I became repulsed by the vile and bitter things I was posting to people I admire and respect. I sometimes feel like a mad man who knows he is insane. That knowledge does not fix the problem but it does offer me the insight to look outside myself and separate my frustration.
I wonder if any Trump supporters know and can admit they have lost their philosophical objectivity?
-
OK boss. I won't refer to any of Trump's followers as dumbasses anymore.
...thanks
-
So, the checks and balances work?
So why support a rodeo clown whose policies would get shot down by Congress?
-
Once-Ler wrote above:
[[ I wonder is Trump in charge of his own destiny? He speaks with such a fractured cadence and structure that the meaning can be easily misinterpreted. Perhaps that is by design, but it won't/shouldn't last as the spotlight focuses tighter upon him. ]]
That's a very thoughtful comment.
But, it begs the question:
WHO could be behind Mr. Trump, pulling "his strings"?
This is obvious with obama.
But with Trump --- who...?
I don't think anyone is pulling Trump's strings...I think circumstances cause Trump to react. Trump has changed his positions on several issues because of supporter reaction. It goes back as far as Trump's Obama birther stance 3 years ago. While he has not rejected his previous position he no longer talks about it.
Trump has stepped into other messes where he has had to back track like Syrian refugees, POWs, and FOX boycotts. He is not in control sometimes and has to quickly nuance into a position more in following his supporters.
-
Too many people really don't seem to understand, for example, exactly what a xenophobe like Trump sounds like to the ears of hispanic Americans - both the native born and the legally admitted/naturalized - because they are able to think through the necessary mechanics of how his xenophobia will be put into place...
And yet Chris Wallace noted that Trump spoke to a group of Hispanic business leaders this week -- a group the media had assumed would be hostile -- and half the people in the room supported the guy. I think you are overthinking the power of specific political positions, and underthinking the power of celebrity and being a pop icon in America as it exists today. That Hispanic lady waving her flag screaming Meester Troomp, Meester Troomp! He gonna fix everything! It's not rational, but then people are not rational, a fact that Trump the brilliant marketer completely understands.
If Trump wins the GOP nomination I predict he will wipe the floor against Hillary Clinton. It will not even be close. It will be cast as a race between a successful and super-competent outsider who will go in and clean up Washington, versus a failed and corrupt professional politician from the establishment who personally surrendered the USA's credibility as a world leader. No contest.
-
I don't think anyone is pulling Trump's strings...I think circumstances cause Trump to react. Trump has changed his positions on several issues because of supporter reaction. It goes back as far as Trump's Obama birther stance 3 years ago. While he has not rejected his previous position he no longer talks about it.
Trump has stepped into other messes where he has had to back track like Syrian refugees, POWs, and FOX boycotts. He is not in control sometimes and has to quickly nuance into a position more in following his supporters.
What I see is a guy who can reposition himself on a whim and pay no political price. That makes him unbeatable from a marketing standpoint. All he has to do is continually move around the ring and run out the clock.
-
Note this is the only thread that appears in the info center, which means for the last hour or so no one on this site has posted anything about anything other than Trump. How do you ignore a man with that kind of power to command the attention of people, even people like us, who are well-informed and politically astute? It's scary, I tell you. Downright scary. And awesome at the same time.
-
What I see is a guy who can reposition himself on a whim and pay no political price.
Yes! Very succinctly put. I see the same thing, however, I don't know why Trump can say stuff that would kill an ordinary campaign. That is what is driving me batty. Why do normally ideologically driven conservatives give Trump a pass? Is it because few voters are actually focused this early or...I dunno what?
That makes him unbeatable from a marketing standpoint. All he has to do is continually move around the ring and run out the clock.
That is true if it lasts, but without knowing why Trump is untouchable I'm not predicting anything.
-
:silly:
Donald Trump isn't doing a damned thing other than ginning up hatred and class division.
And he's turning you into the world's biggest sucker because you have been thoroughly blinded to what his actual values are.
When you go to measure the worth of a man (or a woman), you pay attention to what they do, not what they say, and you pay attention to what they say only when they aren't in a position to spin it for the reason its being tested. This is what you have if you actually pay attention to what Donald Trump really believes, based on his actions, and on what he's said when he wasn't running for nomination: you have a big-state, crony capitalist whose policy preferences are decidedly left of center.
I am simply aghast at how many republicans/conservatives have by now shown themselves to be utterly stupid, to be intellectually vacuous cows on a par with the idiots who voted for Obama in 2012.
Do I detest Trump? Yes, I do. I detest him because not only is he a statist crony capitalist whose real policy preferences tend toward big government that exercises its power for the benefit of the politically-connected oligopoly, but because he's a liar and a hypocrite over and above jack-asses like Sanders who at least has the decency to admit that he's a socialist.
RE: the bold above...Said it a hundred times already. I don't give a damn about his values. The ONLY value I like is that his name isn't Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.
As with the lottery...you MUST buy a ticket if you have any expectation of winning.
Trump is attracting MORE than enough voters to cancel out you 'principled' guys. Thank God.
-
Trump is attracting MORE than enough voters to cancel out you 'principled' guys. Thank God.
Principled!!! Those are fighting words DC! :laugh:
-
That is true if it lasts, but without knowing why Trump is untouchable I'm not predicting anything.
He is untouchable because he has branded himself on attributes not related to political ideology. Therefore, he cannot be defeated based on political ideology. In business school parlance, he has shifted the paradigm. And he has done so while those of us who have been at this a while continue to scratch our heads in disbelief.
-
And that is why I have no faith in republicans - especially conservatives - nor in the American people in general. The same stupid f*cking idiots who elected Obama will be the same f*cking stupid idiots who elect Trump.
It's not a matter of not being able to grasp reality, it's a matter of not being willing to settle for demagoguery and mobocracy just because the mob of the day calls itself conservative.
I can deal with Trump being the GOP nominee - as I have said repeatedly, I am not an untrustworthy fair weather friend and will vote for him if he is the GOP nominee for the general election - and it is precisely that willingness to seize the sharp end of the sword, notwithstanding the wounds, that gives me the right to call out the whole truth to the rest of you, no matter how much of a Cassandra that makes me.
Oceander....we were given fair warning from Myst that the language has to be tempered here.
There's no reason with 'Batman and Robin' gone that we have to resort to cursing in order to make a point. The eff word should be off limits, don't you think? Why not pick another?
-
OK boss. I won't refer to any of Trump's followers as dumbasses anymore.
:laugh:
-
Note this is the only thread that appears in the info center, which means for the last hour or so no one on this site has posted anything about anything other than Trump. How do you ignore a man with that kind of power to command the attention of people, even people like us, who are well-informed and politically astute? It's scary, I tell you. Downright scary. And awesome at the same time.
This has been an extremely interesting thread for me, thank you massadvj and everyone one who has contributed.
I have a ton of TV to watch. The Good Wife, Walking Dead, Homeland, Once Upon a Time, Last Man on Earth, Comic Book Men, and Last Week with John Oliver have new episodes tonight. I hope I get through the first 3 before I fall asleep.
-
If they wish to insist on labeling us as "haters" then they'll just have to put up with the less incendiary label of dumbass.
So, IOW....you're telling us there is a moral equivalency between being called a dumbass and being called a Trump hater.
Gimme a break! :whistle:
-
This has been an extremely interesting thread for me, thank you massadvj and everyone one who has contributed.
I have a ton of TV to watch. The Good Wife, Walking Dead, Homeland, Once Upon a Time, Last Man on Earth, Comic Book Men, and Last Week with John Oliver have new episodes tonight. I hope I get through the first 3 before I fall asleep.
Just watched Homeland. Yikes...... getting set to watch Walking Dead. Watched a couple episodes of the spin-off of ARROW, called FLASH. :laugh:
-
He is untouchable because he has branded himself on attributes not related to political ideology. Therefore, he cannot be defeated based on political ideology. In business school parlance, he has shifted the paradigm. And he has done so while those of us who have been at this a while continue to scratch our heads in disbelief.
That is as good a theory as any I can think of. If true then maybe the other candidates should be attacking his business success. I'll need to think on that more. Thank you for the response.
-
Just watched Homeland. Yikes...... getting set to watch Walking Dead. Watched a couple episodes of the spin-off of ARROW, called FLASH. :laugh:
I'm actually enjoying Flash more than Arrow. It's fun instead of gloomy.
-
I agree. I know I am unhealthy obsessed with Trump to such a point that I have taken breaks from this forum because I became repulsed by the vile and bitter things I was posting to people I admire and respect. I sometimes feel like a mad man who knows he is insane. That knowledge does not fix the problem but it does offer me the insight to look outside myself and separate my frustration.
I wonder if any Trump supporters know and can admit they have lost their philosophical objectivity?
You're a good man, Once-Ler. :beer:
And regarding my lost philosophical objectivity....I picked Romney in a landslide right up to Election Day afternoon. :laugh:
-
That is as good a theory as any I can think of. If true then maybe the other candidates should be attacking his business success. I'll need to think on that more. Thank you for the response.
I think the attack ad I would fear most if I was Trump is the testimony from widows who held Trump bonds and depended on them for their retirement income, only to have their entire life savings pulled out from under them by Trump declaring bankruptcy. If I were Jeb Bush, that is what I would be preparing right now, complete with crocodile tears and maybe sickness brought on by all the stress from losing their pensions, all because they trusted Trump.
And then maybe Trump claiming that the people he defaulted on were only ruthless bankers who deserved it.
-
You're a good man, Once-Ler. :beer:
You are a man of refined character and taste to notice. :laugh:
And regarding my lost philosophical objectivity....I picked Romney in a landslide right up to Election Day afternoon. :laugh:
The polls made fools of us all my friend.
-
I think the attack ad I would fear most if I was Trump is the testimony from widows who held Trump bonds and depended on them for their retirement income, only to have their entire life savings pulled out from under them by Trump declaring bankruptcy. If I were Jeb Bush, that is what I would be preparing right now, complete with crocodile tears and maybe sickness brought on by all the stress from losing their pensions, all because they trusted Trump.
And then maybe Trump claiming that the people he defaulted on were only ruthless bankers who deserved it.
It is perplexing to me that neither Rubio or Bush seem interested in taking on Trump, but instead seem hellbent on taking on Rubio and Bush. Perhaps they too are baffled by the Teflon Don, but it is making me wonder how much they want the job, and further whether they deserve it.
-
What I see is a guy who can reposition himself on a whim and pay no political price. That makes him unbeatable from a marketing standpoint. All he has to do is continually move around the ring and run out the clock.
I've used the "rope a dope" analogy before. It seems to fit. The last man standing works in pugilism and politics.
-
It is perplexing to me that neither Rubio or Bush seem interested in taking on Trump, but instead seem hellbent on taking on Rubio and Bush. Perhaps they too are baffled by the Teflon Don, but it is making me wonder how much they want the job, and further whether they deserve it.
I think there are a lot of things being held until just before the elections begin. :baghead: has been in front of the cameras so much, they could air hours of embarrassing comments and moments (just his WWE antics alone could fill a news segment). Wait until it has maximum impact. Make people embarrassed to vote for him.
-
You have. I have not felt compelled to argue against your point that Trump will be ineffective.
I was wrong. Call the neighbors, wake the kids, and mark it on the calendars. I thought Trump would fade as reality set in. I still think there is time for Republicans to wake up, but like Governor Walker I too fear that Trump could win.
Regardless of how ineffective he might be, President Trump is now a very concrete nightmare for me, perhaps more terrifying than President Hillary or Sanders.
not because of what President Trump may do...but because what it says about the GOP voters.
This is the bottom line for me. It says that GOP voters don't care a whit for conservative values, ethics, or principles.
This is a scary time for me.
The GOP has lost everything it has ever stood for if we select Trump as our nominee.
No more complaining from anyone about the "GOP-e." We have sunk far deeper than the establishment ever could if we select Trump.
-
I think there are a lot of things being held until just before the elections begin. :baghead: has been in front of the cameras so much, they could air hours of embarrassing comments and moments (just his WWE antics alone could fill a news segment). Wait until it has maximum impact. Make people embarrassed to vote for him.
What I have observed from some of Trump's devotees is that they seem to be beyond embarrassment. All the things about Trump that should embarrass a reasonable, thoughtful person make them love him more.
I think it's because his most negative qualities are what they like best. It's all about getting even, and not about doing what's best for the country.
I only hope that those who are most vocal in their support of the insupportable are still a minority in the Republican party and that there are enough people who still think, rather than react from pure emotion who can overcome this unfortunate Trump-mania.
-
What I have observed from some of Trump's devotees is that they seem to be beyond embarrassment. All the things about Trump that should embarrass a reasonable, thoughtful person make them love him more.
I think it's because his most negative qualities are what they like best. It's all about getting even, and not about doing what's best for the country.
I only hope that those who are most vocal in their support of the insupportable are still a minority in the Republican party and that there are enough people who still think, rather than react from pure emotion who can overcome this unfortunate Trump-mania.
I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that thoughtful, intelligent people whom I respect and read here still dream about "the old days".
Ronald Reagan is dead. Gone.
And most of his followers and disciples are seasoned citizens who grew up in a completely different country than the one we live in today.
We have an entire generation of Millennials who can't start careers and are still living at home with their parents. Those that do have jobs/careers are working in government. They were NEVER taught the virtues of Reagan Conservatism.
They weren't even born yet. And they vote!
It's no different than you and I being expected to cherish the virtues of Calvin Coolidge.
That's the REALITY in which we live today.
And with the social media complex being controlled by Progressives...Academia infested with Leftists...and Hollywood feeding our young a steady diet of Zombie apocalypses and gore...Conservatives have become pariahs in the eyes of the majority of Americans.
I am truly embarrassed indeed.
-
I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that thoughtful, intelligent people whom I respect and read here still dream about "the old days".
Ronald Reagan is dead. Gone.
And most of his followers and disciples are seasoned citizens who grew up in a completely different country than the one we live in today.
We have an entire generation of Millennials who can't start careers and are still living at home with their parents. Those that do have jobs/careers are working in government. They were NEVER taught the virtues of Reagan Conservatism.
They weren't even born yet. And they vote!
It's no different than you and I being expected to cherish the virtues of Calvin Coolidge.
That's the REALITY in which we live today.
And with the social media complex being controlled by Progressives...Academia infested with Leftists...and Hollywood feeding our young a steady diet of Zombie apocalypses and gore...Conservatives have become pariahs in the eyes of the majority of Americans.
I am truly embarrassed indeed.
What does that have to do with Trump?
-
What does that have to do with Trump?
???
Isn't your 'problem' with Donald Trump his lack of Conservative bonafides? That he's not "Conservative"? Isn't that where it all stems?
-
I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that thoughtful, intelligent people whom I respect and read here still dream about "the old days".
Ronald Reagan is dead. Gone.
And most of his followers and disciples are seasoned citizens who grew up in a completely different country than the one we live in today.
We have an entire generation of Millennials who can't start careers and are still living at home with their parents. Those that do have jobs/careers are working in government. They were NEVER taught the virtues of Reagan Conservatism.
They weren't even born yet. And they vote!
It's no different than you and I being expected to cherish the virtues of Calvin Coolidge.
That's the REALITY in which we live today.
And with the social media complex being controlled by Progressives...Academia infested with Leftists...and Hollywood feeding our young a steady diet of Zombie apocalypses and gore...Conservatives have become pariahs in the eyes of the majority of Americans.
I am truly embarrassed indeed.
goopo
-
Just speculating, but I think DCs saying that Donald Trump is a product of 21st century social and political environment + seven years of obamanation. So, the old ways of pushing back progressivism won't work in this environment. Candidates gotta swim in these waters if they want to stay afloat. And Trump appears to be riding a wave of the establishment's making.
Crude, but I'm sticking to it.
-
???
Isn't your 'problem' with Donald Trump his lack of Conservative bonafides? That he's not "Conservative"? Isn't that where it all stems?
Yes.......... that's part of it. His lack of character, fundamental decency and respect is the other part.
But your post doesn't at all address why we need someone who is not conservative (present tense, not past), to be our nominee.
Somehow you missed making a connection between your complaint and your supposed solution.
-
Rush was discussing the whole Bush-is-responsible-for-9/11 on his show and pointed out that it is most likely cover for Hillary right before her appearance before the Benghazi hearing. If Bush wasn't blamed, then neither should Hillary be blamed....
This supports the theory that Trump is in the race to help Hillary. He brings up Bush and 9/11 (completely lacking facts to support his ridiculous statements), and it helps Hillary out....
It's a plausible theory because what Trump is doing from any other perspective makes no sense.
-
Rush was discussing the whole Bush-is-responsible-for-9/11 on his show and pointed out that it is most likely cover for Hillary right before her appearance before the Benghazi hearing. If Bush wasn't blamed, then neither should Hillary be blamed....
This supports the theory that Trump is in the race to help Hillary. He brings up Bush and 9/11 (completely lacking facts to support his ridiculous statements), and it helps Hillary out....
It's a plausible theory because what Trump is doing from any other perspective makes no sense.
Was that on todays show? I have always had that in the back of my mind, he is in it to help Hil.
-
Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary and has been from the very beginning.
-
Was that on todays show? I have always had that in the back of my mind, he is in it to help Hil.
Yes. I think it was on during the first hour.
Rush didn't actually state that Trump was in it to help Hillary (he said something about its supporting Trump's immigration policy), but that what he was saying was not factually accurate. Rush went through the details of how Bush didn't even have his cabinet in place, how the hijackers came in the country during the Clinton regime, and discussed the Gorelik wall between the FBI and CIA.
Trump is at the forefront of this pathetic attack on Bush, and it makes a false equivalency between Bush's culpability and Hillary's.
There is no logical reason to believe Trump's attack isn't designed to help Clinton, IMO.
-
Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary and has been from the very beginning.
I concur.
-
[quote
It's a plausible theory because what Trump is doing from any other perspective makes no sense.
[/quote]
It makes perfect sense from a political position. Jeb said his brother kept America safe. Trump essentially says no, he did not as terrorists attacked both the towers and the Pentagon while his brother was President. Trump then doubles down and says the attack was aided by a weak and ineffective immigration policy, that he will change. He implies that Jeb will continue the ineffective policy since Jeb is weak on immigration and therefore, Jeb is also weak on protecting America. Therefore, Trump attacks Jeb both on national security and on immigration, a two for one issue.
-
Here is what Rush said
The 9/11-Benghazi Analogy Is Bogus (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=183444.new#new)
-
Find it amazing that Obama has screwed up the Middle East, Foreign Policy expertise of a 3rd grader and people are concerned over a true statement that Bush 43 was POTUS when it occurred. NOW that is really important? :thud:
-
[quote
It's a plausible theory because what Trump is doing from any other perspective makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense from a political position. Jeb said his brother kept America safe. Trump essentially says no, he did not as terrorists attacked both the towers and the Pentagon while his brother was President. Trump then doubles down and says the attack was aided by a weak and ineffective immigration policy, that he will change. He implies that Jeb will continue the ineffective policy since Jeb is weak on immigration and therefore, Jeb is also weak on protecting America. Therefore, Trump attacks Jeb both on national security and on immigration, a two for one issue.
All of that assumes a complete lack of ethics on Trump's part.
Which, of course, is also a logical assumption.....
-
Find it amazing that Obama has screwed up the Middle East, Foreign Policy expertise of a 3rd grader and people are concerned over a true statement that Bush 43 was POTUS when it occurred. NOW that is really important? :thud:
It is if it means the GOP front runner is a liar.
-
I concur.
As do I.
-
Yes. I think it was on during the first hour.
Rush didn't actually state that Trump was in it to help Hillary (he said something about its supporting Trump's immigration policy), but that what he was saying was not factually accurate. Rush went through the details of how Bush didn't even have his cabinet in place, how the hijackers came in the country during the Clinton regime, and discussed the Gorelik wall between the FBI and CIA.
Trump is at the forefront of this pathetic attack on Bush, and it makes a false equivalency between Bush's culpability and Hillary's.
There is no logical reason to believe Trump's attack isn't designed to help Clinton, IMO.
Come on!
I was listening to his show in the car when he broached the subject. He at NO TIME claimed that Hillary was covering for Hillary. He didn't even mention Hillary Clinton.
What the heck have you done to musiclady
Geesh! :laugh:
-
Come on!
I was listening to his show in the car when he broached the subject. He at NO TIME claimed that Hillary was covering for Hillary. He didn't even mention Hillary Clinton.
What the heck have you done to musiclady
Geesh! :laugh:
I clearly stated that Rush said nothing about Trump's supporting Hillary, because he didn't.
I stated that the fact that Trump led the charge in blaming Bush for 9/11 supported the theory that Trump is in the race to be a shill for Hillary.
And it DOES support that theory.
(What has happened to your reading skills, DC? Your support of Trump makes you read things that are not there..... )
-
I clearly stated that Rush said nothing about Trump's supporting Hillary, because he didn't.
I stated that the fact that Trump led the charge in blaming Bush for 9/11 supported the theory that Trump is in the race to be a shill for Hillary.
And it DOES support that theory.
(What has happened to your reading skills, DC? Your support of Trump makes you read things that are not there..... )
You CLEARLY stated no such thing. Until a half dozen replies later than your original post where you made the assertion.
Here is your COMPLETE original post:
Rush was discussing the whole Bush-is-responsible-for-9/11 on his show and pointed out that it is most likely cover for Hillary right before her appearance before the Benghazi hearing. If Bush wasn't blamed, then neither should Hillary be blamed....
This supports the theory that Trump is in the race to help Hillary. He brings up Bush and 9/11 (completely lacking facts to support his ridiculous statements), and it helps Hillary out....
It's a plausible theory because what Trump is doing from any other perspective makes no sense.
Pray tell....please show me where you said Rush didn't say it was cover for Hillary.
-
I clearly stated that Rush said nothing about Trump's supporting Hillary, because he didn't.
I stated that the fact that Trump led the charge in blaming Bush for 9/11 supported the theory that Trump is in the race to be a shill for Hillary.
And it DOES support that theory.
(What has happened to your reading skills, DC? Your support of Trump makes you read things that are not there..... )
Furthermore....where in the heck in reply #158 did ANYBODY claim that Rush said Trump "supports Hillary"?
Whose reading comprehension is lacking today??? :whistle:
"Covering" for Hillary is not even the same thing as "Supporting Hillary".
Your personal opinion of Donald Trump is clouding your posts here.
-
Everybody scroll up...I posted a link to exactly what Rush said today....play nice.
-
You CLEARLY stated no such thing. Until a half dozen replies later than your original post where you made the assertion.
Here is your COMPLETE original post:
Pray tell....please show me where you said Rush didn't say it was cover for Hillary.
Yikes, DC! I said that Rush said that blaming Bush for 9/11 was cover for Hillary's Benghazi's debacle. AND HE DID. (Read mystery's link, please).
He also stated that the Dems jumped on Trump's blaming Bush for 9/11.
I WAS THE ONE who said that it supports the theory that Trump is helping Hillary.
And it does.
I did NOT say that Rush said it. I said that I made that connection.
Get it yet??
(I return your SHEESH!!)
-
Furthermore....where in the heck in reply #158 did ANYBODY claim that Rush said Trump "supports Hillary"?
Whose reading comprehension is lacking today??? :whistle:
"Covering" for Hillary is not even the same thing as "Supporting Hillary".
Your personal opinion of Donald Trump is clouding your posts here.
No. Actually it's not.
If you read what I said once again, you will see that you misinterpreted and misread my actual words.
Repeating.....
I said that Rush said blaming Bush for 9/11 before Hillary testifies on Benghazi gives her cover. I did NOT say that he said that was Trump's motivation. He said that Trump's motivation was his stance on immigration (and that it was the Dems who were giving Hillary cover). But he also corrected Trump by saying that the terrorists got into the country while Clinton was President.
It was my conjecture that Trump's pre-empting Hillary's testimony by blaming Bush for 9/11 was designed to help her.
I did NOT say that Rush said that.
And I stated it quite clearly.....
-
All of that assumes a complete lack of ethics on Trump's part.
Which, of course, is also a logical assumption.....
Isn't lack of ethics a necessary but insufficient condition for entering politics?
-
Isn't lack of ethics a necessary but insufficient condition for entering politics?
In a jaded world, yes.
In a world where there is still hope of decency and honor, no.
I still retain a modicum of hope that America has a chance of recovery............ of once again having people of honor, like George Washington, lead us.
-
[quote
It's a plausible theory because what Trump is doing from any other perspective makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense from a political position. Jeb said his brother kept America safe. Trump essentially says no, he did not as terrorists attacked both the towers and the Pentagon while his brother was President. Trump then doubles down and says the attack was aided by a weak and ineffective immigration policy, that he will change. He implies that Jeb will continue the ineffective policy since Jeb is weak on immigration and therefore, Jeb is also weak on protecting America. Therefore, Trump attacks Jeb both on national security and on immigration, a two for one issue.
Has anybody asked Jeb how Mohammed Atta was able to get a Florida driver's license with an expired visa while Jeb was governor of that state?
Has anybody asked Jeb why in his 2013 book he in part blamed lax immigration laws for 9/11?
-
Has anybody asked Jeb how Mohammed Atta was able to get a Florida driver's license with an expired visa while Jeb was governor of that state?
Has anybody asked Jeb why in his 2013 book he in part blamed lax immigration laws for 9/11?
Because checks are only as good as the person carrying them out.
-
Yikes, DC! I said that Rush said that blaming Bush for 9/11 was cover for Hillary's Benghazi's debacle. AND HE DID. (Read mystery's link, please).
He also stated that the Dems jumped on Trump's blaming Bush for 9/11.
I WAS THE ONE who said that it supports the theory that Trump is helping Hillary.
And it does.
I did NOT say that Rush said it. I said that I made that connection.
Get it yet??
(I return your SHEESH!!)
That is why Trump is running to help his buddies the Clinton, but we shall what happens if plugs is indeed running. What we should be focus on is the failures of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (if she is the nominee).. Not GW Bush!!!!
-
Has anybody asked Jeb how Mohammed Atta was able to get a Florida driver's license with an expired visa while Jeb was governor of that state?
Has anybody asked Jeb why in his 2013 book he in part blamed lax immigration laws for 9/11?
Excellent questions.
-
It is if it means the GOP front runner is a liar.
:amen:
-
Yes.......... that's part of it. His lack of character, fundamental decency and respect is the other part.
But your post doesn't at all address why we need someone who is not conservative (present tense, not past), to be our nominee.
Somehow you missed making a connection between your complaint and your supposed solution.
About Trump lacking character. Your opinion, right? Because I'm not aware of anyone making that charge who actually knows Trump or who worked with him. Do you? I assume people having direct interaction with someone would be in better position to judge whether that person lacks character.
I'd like the opportunity to hear from those folks. Because the middle of a political campaign is where truth gets buried and character goes to get assassinated.
-
About Trump lacking character. Your opinion, right? Because I'm not aware of anyone making that charge who actually knows Trump or who worked with him. Do you? I assume people having direct interaction with someone would be in better position to judge whether that person lacks character.
I'd like the opportunity to hear from those folks. Because the middle of a political campaign is where truth gets buried and character goes to get assassinated.
Thanks for your post here, AC! You've made an excellent point.
I think a lot of musiclady, and the last thing was looking for, was to get into an argument/disagreement/fight.
While I've gone over the last two pages of the thread it's still clear, to me anyway, that I didn't miss making any connection, etc..
But at my age, I've learned to always give a lady the last word. Especially a musiclady.
-
About Trump lacking character. Your opinion, right? Because I'm not aware of anyone making that charge who actually knows Trump or who worked with him. Do you? I assume people having direct interaction with someone would be in better position to judge whether that person lacks character.
I'd like the opportunity to hear from those folks. Because the middle of a political campaign is where truth gets buried and character goes to get assassinated.
Truth? Trump knew that slandering Bush over 9/11 would be a slap at both GW and Jeb. And that's why he's doing it. He hates the Bush's, which demonstrates a total lack of character on Trump's part.
This bastard is not a Republican. He has supported so many Democrats and so many Democrat policies in the past, that his "conversion" to the GOP is completely phony.
I'm honest. I despise Trump. I will never pull a lever for him, even if he's the GOP nominee. If you Trumproids defend a sonofabitch like this, and think he would make a fine president, then I don't belong in the same party as you do.
-
Thanks for your post here, AC! You've made an excellent point.
I think a lot of musiclady, and the last thing was looking for, was to get into an argument/disagreement/fight.
While I've gone over the last two pages of the thread it's still clear, to me anyway, that I didn't miss making any connection, etc..
But at my age, I've learned to always give a lady the last word. Especially a musiclady.
Funny........... I've gone over the last couple of pages multiple times and it was clear to me that you misunderstood what I said.
But let's give the point to you that it was confusing.
Since that first post, I've made it abundantly clear what I meant, and you still won't accept what I've said.
That means that you must think I'm not telling the truth, and that is very disturbing.
Read my last four posts and try to understand what I said. It IS what I said in the first post, but again, if it was easily misunderstood, I more than cleared it up.
A word to the wise??
-
About Trump lacking character. Your opinion, right? Because I'm not aware of anyone making that charge who actually knows Trump or who worked with him. Do you? I assume people having direct interaction with someone would be in better position to judge whether that person lacks character.
I'd like the opportunity to hear from those folks. Because the middle of a political campaign is where truth gets buried and character goes to get assassinated.
I'm basing my opinion on observation of multiple statements made by Mr. Trump. I accept the fact that others may not share my observations, but I am basing it on actual things he has said....
Like that 9/11 was Bush's fault. It's not true, and it's Democrat propaganda.
Period.
-
I'm basing my opinion on observation of multiple statements made by Mr. Trump. I accept the fact that others may not share my observations, but I am basing it on actual things he has said....
Like that 9/11 was Bush's fault. It's not true, and it's Democrat propaganda.
Period.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=183465
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=183465
"Soft trutherism" is a perfect way to describe Trump's view of 9/11.
Disgusting.
-
"Soft trutherism" is a perfect way to describe Trump's view of 9/11.
Disgusting.
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
-
And yet Chris Wallace noted that Trump spoke to a group of Hispanic business leaders this week -- a group the media had assumed would be hostile -- and half the people in the room supported the guy. I think you are overthinking the power of specific political positions, and underthinking the power of celebrity and being a pop icon in America as it exists today. That Hispanic lady waving her flag screaming Meester Troomp, Meester Troomp! He gonna fix everything! It's not rational, but then people are not rational, a fact that Trump the brilliant marketer completely understands.
If Trump wins the GOP nomination I predict he will wipe the floor against Hillary Clinton. It will not even be close. It will be cast as a race between a successful and super-competent outsider who will go in and clean up Washington, versus a failed and corrupt professional politician from the establishment who personally surrendered the USA's credibility as a world leader. No contest.
And business leaders fully represent all of those voters who would identify as hispanic?
Beyond which, you merely illustrate my point: there are so many ways in which republican values are consonant with those of traditional hispanic culture, and yet we continually drive them away from us by emphasizing not our common values, but specious trivialities that drive us apart, like ethnic derivation and skin color.
Honestly, the only real difference between the GOP and Charlie Brown is that the GOP keeps yanking its own ball away.
-
Funny........... I've gone over the last couple of pages multiple times and it was clear to me that you misunderstood what I said.
But let's give the point to you that it was confusing.
It certainly was. Thank you for admitting it.
Since that first post, I've made it abundantly clear what I meant, and you still won't accept what I've said.
That means that you must think I'm not telling the truth, and that is very disturbing.
Read my last four posts and try to understand what I said. It IS what I said in the first post, but again, if it was easily misunderstood, I more than cleared it up.
A word to the wise??
Please ML....stop.
The reason for this entire misunderstanding is because you weren't clear to begin with.
I don't read the "new replies" to the end and then go back and reply to specific ones. Respond as I read them.
I've said I have enormous respect for you....yet you insist that I'm inferring you're a liar and your find it "disturbing".
Seems YOU have the issues you need to deal with...not me.
Good evening.
-
It certainly was. Thank you for admitting it.
Please ML....stop.
The reason for this entire misunderstanding is because you weren't clear to begin with.
I don't read the "new replies" to the end and then go back and reply to specific ones. Respond as I read them.
I've said I have enormous respect for you....yet you insist that I'm inferring you're a liar and your find it "disturbing".
Seems YOU have the issues you need to deal with...not me.
Good evening.
You're clinging to your own misunderstanding in spite of the fact that it was repeatedly cleared up for you.
That's not 'enormous respect' DC. That's enormous disrespect.
I don't really like what your love for Trump has done to you.......
Next time I won't bother trying to have a rational discussion with you on the subject of your love.
It doesn't work....
-
What I have observed from some of Trump's devotees is that they seem to be beyond embarrassment. All the things about Trump that should embarrass a reasonable, thoughtful person make them love him more.
I think it's because his most negative qualities are what they like best. It's all about getting even, and not about doing what's best for the country.
I only hope that those who are most vocal in their support of the insupportable are still a minority in the Republican party and that there are enough people who still think, rather than react from pure emotion who can overcome this unfortunate Trump-mania.
....and YOU say that YOU'VE been shown enormous disrespect..... :whistle:
ML....pot, kettle, black.
-
....and YOU say that YOU'VE been shown enormous disrespect..... :whistle:
ML....pot, kettle, black.
You missed the word "SOME" DC. THAT, my good friend, is your problem. I was talking about some, not ALL Trump devotees, and you falsely assumed I was talking about you. (I wasn't).
I ask you once again..... PLEASE read the words that are actually there, realize who has written them, and then respond.
This entire conversation has been based on your MISunderstanding of what I actually said..... and you are still arguing a point that has no basis. On the occasions where I have misunderstood what some one said, thinking it was said about me, when that person said that I wasn't talking about them, I believed them. So here goes........... I was NOT talking about you. Do you respect me enough to believe that, or are you going to continue to argue based on your perception and not reality?
Bottom line.....I hope next time you will realize that I respect you, that you will read what I say more carefully, that you will actually believe what I say when I clarify, and that you will stop being so stinking defensive about a guy you happen to support in the Republican primary. I'm not going to stop saying what I think about Trump because you might be offended. I'm going to trust that you mean you respect me, even though sometimes it doesn't seem like it.
If you kill friendships because of politics, shame on you........ I don't like Trump. You do. I can deal with it. Can you??
-
Posted by: musiclady
« on: Today at 09:49:14 AM
...
Bottom line.....I hope next time you will realize that I respect you, that you will read what I say more carefully, that you will actually believe what I say when I clarify, and that you will stop being so stinking defensive about a guy you happen to support in the Republican primary. I'm not going to stop saying what I think about Trump because you might be offended. I'm going to trust that you mean you respect me, even though sometimes it doesn't seem like it.
...
But what you said before that:
Quote from: musiclady on October 19, 2015, 08:42:00 AM
What I have observed from some of Trump's devotees is that they seem to be beyond embarrassment. All the things about Trump that should embarrass a reasonable, thoughtful person make them love him more.
I think it's because his most negative qualities are what they like best. It's all about getting even, and not about doing what's best for the country.
I only hope that those who are most vocal in their support of the insupportable are still a minority in the Republican party and that there are enough people who still think, rather than react from pure emotion who can overcome this unfortunate Trump-mania.
What you say about Trump is fair-game musiclady - it's politics. But what you said about his supporters, even though you said "some" of his supporters is what is hurtful. There's been plenty of complaints about supporters of candidates being slammed for being supporters. Everyone likes to say it is a two-way street, but frankly, it just seems like open season on people that say anything supportive of Donald Trump.
I can understand why DC felt disrepected, he has been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump - one of those "some" supporters. Why do people that dislike Trump have to slam his supporters too? I don't see that happening to supporters of other candidates on this forum.
:shrug:
-
I said some. I meant some.
I'm going to keep saying some when I mean some.
DC knows me. You know me.
If I'm being too sensitive, you feel free to correct me. Do the same with DC.
Finished.
-
I said some. I meant some.
I'm going to keep saying some when I mean some.
DC knows me. You know me.
If I'm being too sensitive, you feel free to correct me. Do the same with DC.
Finished.
Just returned....and wanted to say this last one thing.
The reason I felt you were addressing me as being "beyond embarrassment" is because 1) this is my thread. 2) I am virtually the only vocal supported of Trump on this thread.
OTOH...there are many, many vocal anti-Trumpers on this forum. Yet, you got all bent out of shape at the thought somebody was singling you out as a "hater".
Thank you.
Finished.
-
Hope everybody is listening to the first hour of Rush's show right now.... :laugh:
-
some
[suhm; unstressed suh m]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
adjective
1. being an undetermined or unspecified one:
Some person may object.
2. (used with plural nouns) certain:
Some days I stay home.
3. of a certain unspecified number, amount, degree, etc.:
to some extent.
4. unspecified but considerable in number, amount, degree, etc.:
We talked for some time. He was here some weeks.
5. Informal. of impressive or remarkable quality, consequence, extent, etc.:
That was some storm.
pronoun
6. certain persons, individuals, instances, etc., not specified:
Some think he is dead.
7. an unspecified number, amount, etc., as distinguished from the rest or in addition:
He paid a thousand dollars and then some.
adverb
8. (used with numerals and with words expressing degree, extent, etc.) approximately; about:
Some 300 were present.
9. Informal. to some degree or extent; somewhat :
I like baseball some. She is feeling some better today.
10. Informal. to a great degree or extent; considerably:
That's going some.
Origin of some
Middle EnglishOld English
900before 900; Middle English (adj. and pronoun); Old English sum orig., someone; cognate with Middle Low German, Middle High German sum, Old Norse sumr, Gothic sums
Can be confused
some, sum (see usage note at the current entry)
Usage note
As pronouns, both some and any may be used in affirmative or negative questions: Will you(won't you) have some? Do you (don't you) have any? But some is used in affirmative statements and answers: You may have some. Yes, I'd like some.And in negative statements and answers, any is the usual choice: I don't care for any. No, I can't take any.
-some1
1. a native English suffix formerly used in the formation of adjectives:
quarrelsome; burdensome.
Origin
Middle English; Old English -sum; akin to Gothic -sama, German -sam; see same
-some2
1. a collective suffix used with numerals:
twosome; threesome.
Origin
Middle English -sum, Old English sum; special use of some (pronoun)
-some3
1. a combining form meaning “body,” used in the formation of compound words:
chromosome.
Expand
Also, -soma.
Origin Expand
< Greek sôma body; see soma1
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.
British Dictionary definitions for some
some
/sʌm; unstressed səm/
determiner
1. (a) certain unknown or unspecified: some lunatic drove into my car, some people never learn
(as pronoun; functioning as sing or plural): some can teach and others can't
2. an unknown or unspecified quantity or amount of: there's some rice on the table, he owns some horses
(as pronoun; functioning as sing or plural): we'll buy some
3. a considerable number or amount of: he lived some years afterwards
a little: show him some respect
4. (usually stressed) ( informal) an impressive or remarkable: that was some game!
5. a certain amount (more) (in the phrases some more and (informal) and then some)
6. about; approximately: he owes me some thirty pounds
adverb
7. (US, not standard) to a certain degree or extent: I guess I like him some
Word Origin
Old English sum; related to Old Norse sumr, Gothic sums, Old High German sum some, Sanskrit samá any, Greek hamē somehow
-some1
suffix
1. characterized by; tending to: awesome, tiresome
Word Origin
Old English -sum; related to Gothic -sama, German -sam
-some2
suffix
1. indicating a group of a specified number of members: threesome
Word Origin
Old English sum, special use of some (determiner)
-some3
/-səʊm/
combining form
1. a body: chromosome
Word Origin
from Greek sōma body
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Word Origin and History for some
adj.
Old English sum "some, a, a certain one, something, a certain quantity; a certain number;" with numerals "out of" (e.g. sum feowra "one of four"); from Proto-Germanic *suma- (cf. Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Old High German sum, Old Norse sumr, Gothic sums), from PIE *smm-o-, suffixed form of root *sem- (1) "one," also "as one" (adv.), "together with" (see same ). For substitution of -o- for -u-, see come.
The word has had greater currency in English than in the other Teutonic languages, in some of which it is now restricted to dialect use, or represented only by derivatives or compounds .... [OED]
As a pronoun from c.1100; as an adverb from late 13c. Meaning "remarkable" is attested from 1808, American English colloquial. A possessive form is attested from 1560s, but always was rare. Many combination forms ( somewhat, sometime, somewhere) were in Middle English but often written as two words till 17-19c. Somewhen is rare and since 19c. used almost exclusively in combination with the more common compounds; somewho "someone" is attested from late 14c. but did not endure. Scott (1816) has somegate "somewhere, in some way, somehow," and somekins "some kind of a" is recorded from c.1200. Get some "have sexual intercourse" is attested 1899 in a quote attributed to Abe Lincoln from c.1840.
-some
word-forming element used in making adjectives from nouns or adjectives (and sometimes verbs) and meaning "tending to; causing; to a considerable degree," from Old English -sum, identical with som (see some ). Cf. Old Frisian -sum, German -sam, Old Norse -samr ; also related to same.
suffix added to numerals meaning "a group of (that number)," e.g. twosome, from pronoun use of Old English sum "some" (see some ). Originally a separate word used with the genitive plural (e.g. sixa sum "six-some"); the inflection disappeared in Middle English and the pronoun was absorbed. Use of some with a number meaning "approximately" also was in Old English.
word-forming element meaning "the body," Modern Latin, from Greek soma "the body" (see somato- ).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
some in Medicine Expand
-some suff.
Body: centrosome.
Chromosome: autosome.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cite This Source
Slang definitions & phrases for some Expand
solid
adjective
Wonderful; remarkable; great, groovy • Said to have been used regularly by Louis Armstrong : Man, what solid jive/ That's solid, Willie, let's get together and blow (1920+ Jazz musicians)
The Dictionary of American Slang, Fourth Edition by Barbara Ann Kipfer, PhD. and Robert L. Chapman, Ph.D.
Copyright (C) 2007 by HarperCollins Publishers.
Cite This Source
Idioms and Phrases with some
some
see:
and then some
catch some rays
catch some z's
dig up (some dirt)
in a (some) sense
in some measure
one of these days (some day)
take some doing
to some degree
win some, lose some
-
Hope everybody is listening to the first hour of Rush's show right now.... :laugh:
I am! Rush is right as always!
-
Trump Doubles Down on Bush 9/11 Remarks: ‘They Did Know It Was Coming’
....Trump doubled down on that claim on CNN and claimed they knew the 9/11 attacks were coming and “didn’t really work on it.”
“[L]ook, his brother gets hit on, he’s a loyal person, and he’s loyal to his brother. But his brother made some mistakes. His brother could have made a mistake with the actual hit because they did know it was coming. And George Tenet, the head of the CIA told him that it was coming. So, they did have advanced notice and they didn’t really work on it....
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/20/trump-doubles-down-on-bush-911-remarks-they-did-know-it-was-coming/
-
I am! Rush is right as always!
What was the subject?
-
Just returned....and wanted to say this last one thing.
The reason I felt you were addressing me as being "beyond embarrassment" is because 1) this is my thread. 2) I am virtually the only vocal supported of Trump on this thread.
OTOH...there are many, many vocal anti-Trumpers on this forum. Yet, you got all bent out of shape at the thought somebody was singling you out as a "hater".
Thank you.
Finished.
Actually, I didn't 'get bent out of shape,' and when it was stated that no one was referring to me as a 'hater,' I accepted it and moved on.
That's my point.
You kept fighting when I had cleared it up, thus you were the only one who was 'bent out of shape' at any point in time.
Since you misunderstood my first post, you should have accepted it when I said I wasn't talking about you, just as I did when others said they weren't talking about me. (Check it out if you don't believe me. I moved on and didn't argue the point).
Get it yet?
"SOME" doesn't always include you. .....
-
What was the subject?
He clarified and expounded on yesterday's show regarding Trump putting Jeb Bush on the defensive...having to stand up for his brother.
Also regarding his giving Hillary "cover" for Thursday's hearing.
He also gave Trump huge kudos for writing in his book PRE-911...in 2000, regarding OBL and a coming attack.
-
He clarified and expounded on yesterday's show regarding Trump putting Jeb Bush on the defensive...having to stand up for his brother.
Also regarding his giving Hillary "cover" for Thursday's hearing.
He also gave Trump huge kudos for writing in his book PRE-911...in 2000, regarding OBL and a coming attack.
Just read Rush's comments online. His take and mine are almost identical.
-
Hope everybody is listening to the first hour of Rush's show right now.... :laugh:
Caught most of it. Rush certainly has grown in his excellence.
-
He clarified and expounded on yesterday's show regarding Trump putting Jeb Bush on the defensive...having to stand up for his brother.
Also regarding his giving Hillary "cover" for Thursday's hearing.
He also gave Trump huge kudos for writing in his book PRE-911...in 2000, regarding OBL and a coming attack.
Thanks
-
Just returned....and wanted to say this last one thing.
The reason I felt you were addressing me as being "beyond embarrassment" is because 1) this is my thread. 2) I am virtually the only vocal supported of Trump on this thread.
OTOH...there are many, many vocal anti-Trumpers on this forum. Yet, you got all bent out of shape at the thought somebody was singling you out as a "hater".
Thank you.
Finished.
I'm going to take one last stab at this, DC, because I do like and respect you....
You have said many times that this forum is different because we have built relationships with each other........ sort of like family.
I agree with you about that, which is why I'm not quite ready for you to 'win' this strange argument you have waged..
When you (and others) talked about "haters" and I misunderstood and thought you were talking about me, and then you clarified that you were not....... I BELIEVED you and let it go. I totally trusted that you meant what you said, and still do.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, and you have misunderstood and thought that when I said "some" I was referring to you. I have explained to you that I was not, but you DIDN'T believe me, and have continued to argue for how long? 48 hours??
As much as I would like for you to trust me, I will reluctantly accept that you think I'm not telling the truth, and try to move on. But I have to say that, in spite of our disagreements, I thought the relationship we had trumped (no pun intended) the things we disagreed on. I'm not sure now that that is true for you.
I will not walk on eggshells when I talk about Trump, nor when I refer to SOME of his followers. There is still a long way before the election, and I'm not going to willfully stifle my free speech, but I am also not ready to abandon the friendship I thought we had.
I'm going to continue to say what I think. Just try to remember who I am and where my words are coming from, and we may still be OK. (That's totally up to you).
Now I will leave, and you may continue the discussion on your thread.......
-
I'm going to take one last stab at this, DC, because I do like and respect you....
You have said many times that this forum is different because we have built relationships with each other........ sort of like family.
I agree with you about that, which is why I'm not quite ready for you to 'win' this strange argument you have waged..
When you (and others) talked about "haters" and I misunderstood and thought you were talking about me, and then you clarified that you were not....... I BELIEVED you and let it go. I totally trusted that you meant what you said, and still do.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, and you have misunderstood and thought that when I said "some" I was referring to you. I have explained to you that I was not, but you DIDN'T believe me, and have continued to argue for how long? 48 hours??
As much as I would like for you to trust me, I will reluctantly accept that you think I'm not telling the truth, and try to move on. But I have to say that, in spite of our disagreements, I thought the relationship we had trumped (no pun intended) the things we disagreed on. I'm not sure now that that is true for you.
I will not walk on eggshells when I talk about Trump, nor when I refer to SOME of his followers. There is still a long way before the election, and I'm not going to willfully stifle my free speech, but I am also not ready to abandon the friendship I thought we had.
I'm going to continue to say what I think. Just try to remember who I am and where my words are coming from, and we may still be OK. (That's totally up to you).
Now I will leave, and you may continue the discussion on your thread.......
Love you, musiclady! :laugh:
-
Love you, musiclady! :laugh:
The feeling is mutual! :beer:
(And thanks!)
-
Trump Was Not Prescient about 9/11
...Trump supporters have been lighting up Twitter over the last 24 hours with links to this Buzzfeed story which purports to show that Donald Trump was prescient about the 9/11 attacks. Presumably, in the minds of his supporters, this information bolsters Trump’s credibility when he uses radical leftist talking points about George W. Bush’s handling of the 9/11 attacks....
...In the first place, knowing what we now know about Trump, his basic rhetorical plan is to take every side of every issue within a very short time span so that everyone can find something that they like and latch onto it. It would not be surprising to find a large number of clearly erroneous (if not directly contradictory) things that Trump said on this exact same subject matter in 2000....
...Nothing about either of these statements evidenced anything beyond the knowledge that any person who paid even marginal attention to the news at the time would have known. Numerous news outlets had been saying for years that Osama Bin Laden was planning something on the order of a major terrorist attack on the United States. For example:...
http://www.redstate.com/2015/10/20/trump-prescient-911/
-
..Trump supporters have been lighting up Twitter over the last 24 hours with links to this Buzzfeed story which purports to show that Donald Trump was prescient about the 9/11 attacks.
Good Lord! Trump knew about 9/11 before it happened? Why didn't he tell anyone or do anything about it? Someone should waterboard this traitor and find out what else he is hiding.
-
Matt Dawson @SaintRPh 9h9 hours ago
My picks in order are
Rubio
Cruz
Paul
Fiorina
Whoever the other idiots are
A chewed corn on the cob
Then if I was forced upon death, Trump.
MBCッ @MoonbatCatnip 9h9 hours ago
He doesn't have my vote (yet) but I want to hear what the corn cob has to say about Mexico. @SaintRPh
Boucher, Bobby @MetricButtload 9h9 hours ago
@SaintRPh You have Trump ranked higher than I do.