WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump

[musiclady]

I think he will be slightly less bad.

Slightly less bad than filthy leftist corruption is still filthy leftist corruption.

If I support either, I am sacrificing every principle and moral value I ever had.

And I can't do that.

[jmyrlefuller]

If Trump loses we are all going to need a hell of a lot more than luck.

We'll need it either way.

[LMAO]

I think he will be slightly less bad.

Fiscally, just as bad, if not worse
Economically, the same
Corruption, better than her. No one matches her on corruption
Social issues would depend whatever Trump believes on any given day.

Should he win, it'll shock his supporters,who dreamed we were electing a Reagan/Coolidge/Goldwater clone, how much closer he will be to BHO

[HonestJohn]

Fiscally, just as bad, if not worse
Economically, the same
Corruption, better than her. No one matches her on corruption
Social issues would depend whatever Trump believes on any given day.

Should he win, it'll shock his supporters,who dreamed we were electing a Reagan/Coolidge/Goldwater clone, how much closer he will be to BHO

Ripping up our trade deals and starting trade wars with our largest trading partners will tank our economy.  I'd say that's *FAR* worse than Clinton's status quo.

I like having a job, for I like having a home, cloths, food, insurance, and transportation.  So, I'd like to keep one.  Trump works towards ending jobs for millions.

[HonestJohn]

Republicans used to be the party of Free Trade.  Trump comes on the scene and overnight everyone switches positions.  It's hard to even know what to say to that.

Yep.  Trumpists are leftists (not liberals) who want to simply make sure all the government largess goes to the white right people.  The rest need to be deported or registered with the government for survellience.

[bigheadfred]

Yep.  Trumpists are leftists (not liberals) who want to simply make sure all the government largess goes to the white right people.  The rest need to be deported or registered with the government for survellience.

Be nice to end the thinking the government has any largesse.

[LMAO]

Ripping up our trade deals and starting trade wars with our largest trading partners will tank our economy.  I'd say that's *FAR* worse than Clinton's status quo.

I like having a job, for I like having a home, cloths, food, insurance, and transportation.  So, I'd like to keep one.  Trump works towards ending jobs for millions.

Should he win the election by some miracle, my guess is you're not going to see much difference from him in any trade deals  than what we currently have

 Why do I think that ? Because, despite his rhetoric to his supporters, once he got into office, he's not going to do anything that would deliberately tank our economy. Reality wins out over rhetoric

 

[LMAO]

Republicans used to be the party of Free Trade.  Trump comes on the scene and overnight everyone switches positions.  It's hard to even know what to say to that.

That's why I picked the tagline  I did

[Sanguine]

IMHO slightly less bad is what we just spent 8 years enduring.

That's not a real bright future we're looking at either way.

No,  no it's not.   I see it as being very grim.

[XenaLee]

Be nice to end the thinking the government has any largesse.

It would be nice.  But that wouldn't be the case with either Hillary or Donald in the WH.  Both are lovers of big-government (their only god) control over We, the People.  And both have their preferences, just like Obama, re: what segment of We, the People should get the majority of benefit from taxpayer dollars.  With Hillary it's her and anyone that supports the Clintons either monetarily or via quid pro quo.  With Donald it's him and anyone that he "thinks" would benefit the Trump family and foundation and mostly people that look like him and his kids.  You know...white or slightly orange people.  The Golden Chosen.

[ConstitutionRose]

@Sanguine


"we should be looking at the first lady candidates, instead of just talking about the men"

“If Donald trump is elected, Mrs. Trump will be the first first lady that has ever posed nude; the first first lady that’s the third wife [of the president]; and the first foreign-born first lady in this century.” She said, “by contrast,” Cruz’s wife Heidi would be “the first pro-life first lady.”


"You've been covering Nancy Reagan, look at what an influencer she was to her husband. … I think posing nude speaks to character," she said.


Was that an attack on  Meleana Trump by the Cruz campaign or not? Did that Cruz spokes person imply that Mrs Trump was unfit to be first lady or not?

FYI the attacks on Mrs Trump by team Cruz only got worse after this first one.

The lengths Cruzers go to distort the truth is amazing. Trump at this point had not said one word about Heidi Cruz. However after weeks of team Cruz attacking Mrs Trump he did fire back with an, OMG, a retweet of an unflattering picture of Mrs Cruz. Oh the horror.  Ted Cruz better hope that I have forgotten about this when he up for reelection in 2018.

I listened to the tape.  Did they say anything about Mrs. Trump that was untruthful ?

No.

Soooooo.  Not an attack. 

If Trump is elected she WOULD be the first First Lady to have publicly available nude photos.

NOT an attack.

(Company is gone and I could finally catch up with this thread.  Ya'll like to wore me out.)

[Smokin Joe]

Be nice to end the thinking the government has any largesse.

Everywhere I go, it seems to be sitting on its largesse....

[HonestJohn]

Should he win the election by some miracle, my guess is you're not going to see much difference from him in any trade deals  than what we currently have

 Why do I think that ? Because, despite his rhetoric to his supporters, once he got into office, he's not going to do anything that would deliberately tank our economy. Reality wins out over rhetoric

Trump lives in his own little version of reality... so I wouldn't be too sure on your assertion.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@jpsb, did you actually listen to the video?  It’s about a CNN story that both campaigns responded to.   The Cruz spokeswoman did mention Melania’s naked pics, which I think is stupid and a bit beside the point.  Now, how you spin that to be “the origin of the attack” is just shameful.  You know where the attack originated and you go and find a video of talking head discussing the attack as “proof” of the origination of the attack.  You’re making my head hurt with all the machinations.  You’re not a “campaign operative” by any chance, are you?

It was her job to make the pictures, I don't see why everybody is up in arms about it. Not like it was some secret.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Be nice to end the thinking the government has any largesse.

Considering the federal debt, yeah.

[r9etb]

It was her job to make the pictures, I don't see why everybody is up in arms about it. Not like it was some secret.

I suppose it says something about her; not being a female supermodel myself, I couldn't say what would compel her to pose in the nude.  Probably a lot of pressure to do so.

When it comes to matters of character I'm more bothered by the fact that she married Trump (whose own fealty to marriage vows seems suspect)....

[Emjay]

Should he win the election by some miracle, my guess is you're not going to see much difference from him in any trade deals  than what we currently have

 Why do I think that ? Because, despite his rhetoric to his supporters, once he got into office, he's not going to do anything that would deliberately tank our economy. Reality wins out over rhetoric

True... but do you have any reason to think Donald Trump ever deals in reality?

[Emjay]

I listened to the tape.  Did they say anything about Mrs. Trump that was untruthful ?

No.

Soooooo.  Not an attack. 

If Trump is elected she WOULD be the first First Lady to have publicly available nude photos.

NOT an attack.

(Company is gone and I could finally catch up with this thread.  Ya'll like to wore me out.)

Are you from Texas.  I had to smile at "Ya'll like to wore me out."

[r9etb]

True... but do you have any reason to think Donald Trump ever deals in reality?

He's been moderately successful in the business world so, yes, he's had some dealings with reality.

That said, his real strength is in marketing the Trump brand; and marketing is one of those places where reality is ... malleable.  He has done quite well for himself at the confluence of marketing and investors.

Once released into the reality of the business world, Trump's enterprises tend to have a rather spotty survival rate.

[bigheadfred]

He's been moderately successful in the business world so, yes, he's had some dealings with reality.

That said, his real strength is in marketing the Trump brand; and marketing is one of those places where reality is ... malleable.  He has done quite well for himself at the confluence of marketing and investors.

Once released into the reality of the business world, Trump's enterprises tend to have a rather spotty survival rate.

Scorched earth.

[Norm Lenhart]

He's been moderately successful in the business world so, yes, he's had some dealings with reality.

That said, his real strength is in marketing the Trump brand; and marketing is one of those places where reality is ... malleable.  He has done quite well for himself at the confluence of marketing and investors.

Once released into the reality of the business world, Trump's enterprises tend to have a rather spotty survival rate.

I still think his father set up some form of trust that has people helping his idiot son through life.

Look what happens when Trump is corralled by his handlers. His numbers rise when he stays on their script. When he breaks his leash, it all goes to hell fast because he goes full psycho.

I have an extremely hard time believing that such a man succeeded in business. I think it's more likely that his father's 'handlers' found him success and when he broke the leash, his bankruptcies resulted.

[Emjay]

He's been moderately successful in the business world so, yes, he's had some dealings with reality.

That said, his real strength is in marketing the Trump brand; and marketing is one of those places where reality is ... malleable.  He has done quite well for himself at the confluence of marketing and investors.

Once released into the reality of the business world, Trump's enterprises tend to have a rather spotty survival rate.

Wrong.  Trump has been horrible in the business world.  He's gone through inherited wealth ... had grandiose ideas... borrowed too much ... refused to pay too many people ... hired too many illegals... numerous bankruptcies hanging creditors out to dry ... record numbers of lawsuits ... started fraudulent money-making schemes as in Trump University, Trump wine, Trump beef... I could go on.

[EC]

Why do I think that ? Because, despite his rhetoric to his supporters, once he got into office, he's not going to do anything that would deliberately tank our economy. Reality wins out over rhetoric

Not to mention the elephant in the room - most (not all) of the "terrible deals" were negotiated when the USA was in a far stronger position than it is now, economically and politically speaking. Scrap them and then try getting a better deal after Obama ran your international credibility into the ground? Ain't gonna happen.

[r9etb]

Scrap them and then try getting a better deal after Obama ran your international credibility into the ground? Ain't gonna happen.

The first part, "scrap them," could well happen under Trump.  To him, they'd just be "deals," not unlike the sorts of deals he's frequently dissolved through bankruptcy.

Of course, when you're running a country you can't just start over with a new set of patsies.  Or maybe you can, I don't know .... but more likely it ends up starting a war.