Hillary Clinton blew the most winnable election in modern American history.

[Night Hides Not]

Again - let's move on.

As the one who started this thread, yes, let's move on from the personal attacks and get back to the topic.

Of course, I recognize that I'm an expert at hijacking threads, so my hands aren't clean.

[Lando Lincoln]

As the one who started this thread, yes, let's move on from the personal attacks and get back to the topic.

Of course, I recognize that I'm an expert at hijacking threads, so my hands aren't clean.

It isn't a bad article if anyone reads it.  Slanted?  Sure.  But not bad.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No @HonestJohn posted a legitimate question.

DO you know how to sell people on the benefits of Trump?  Do you know how to convince people who are on the fence or still convinced he's Hillary Clinton's bag man that he's the real deal?

Of course I do, @txradioguy   I spent 12 months doing so, and very successfully.

But the NT's here were not serious about learning about Trump's policies.  It quickly became clear this was a shell game designed to further ridicule both the candidate and his supporters.  In short, it quickly became clear efforts to educate were wasted efforts.

Apparently for some the shell game continues.  I'm still choosing not to play.     ^-^

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Of course I do, @txradioguy   I spent 12 months doing so, and very successfully.

But the NT's here were not serious about learning about Trump's policies.  It quickly became clear this was a shell game designed to further ridicule both the candidate and his supporters.  In short, it quickly became clear efforts to educate were wasted efforts.

Apparently for some the shell game continues.  I'm still choosing not to play.     ^-^

I like most of Trump's policies, it's his style I disagree with.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I like most of Trump's policies, it's his style I disagree with.

That can take some getting used to.   

[txradioguy]

Of course I do, @txradioguy   I spent 12 months doing so, and very successfully.

But the NT's here were not serious about learning about Trump's policies.  It quickly became clear this was a shell game designed to further ridicule both the candidate and his supporters.  In short, it quickly became clear efforts to educate were wasted efforts.

Apparently for some the shell game continues.  I'm still choosing not to play.     ^-^

If you did I never saw it. 

As for Trump's policies, most of us here already knew his policies and political opinions from his munerous interviews dating back to the Reagan years.

You didn't educate IMHO...you propagandized...there is a difference.

It's not a shell game....it's a legit question that deserves more than the superficial brush off answer you're giving.

[Right_in_Virginia]

If you did I never saw it. 

As for Trump's policies, most of us here already knew his policies and political opinions from his munerous interviews dating back to the Reagan years.

You didn't educate IMHO...you propagandized...there is a difference.

It's not a shell game....it's a legit question that deserves more than the superficial brush off answer you're giving.

Still not playing   ^-^

[txradioguy]

It's not propaganda @txradioguy, it's fact.  At 29 Cruz was a "well respected" policy advisor for the Bush campaign in 2000 and was part of the legal team working on the recount.

He has spent more time NOT working for or with W than he ever did for him.  Longest serving Solicitor General in the history of the State of Texas.  5 years teaching law at UT Austin.  Senator since 2012.

Less than two years working for Bush 43.

But when you choose hype over truth...little facts like that get in the way. 

And I thought ABC was an untrusted and biased source?  Or is that only when they are covering Trump?

[corbe]

If you did I never saw it. 

As for Trump's policies, most of us here already knew his policies and political opinions from his munerous interviews dating back to the Reagan years.

You didn't educate IMHO...you propagandized...there is a difference.

It's not a shell game....it's a legit question that deserves more than the superficial brush off answer you're giving.

   Because I already had a Dog in the hunt (Cruz), when Trump announced in June 2015, by July everything I suspected about Trump was cemented by his lust for publicity of the past 30 years. 
   He is a NY Liberal just like Schumer who, can't live without publicity either.
 

[corbe]

@Right_in_Virginia   

If Cruz was such an Insider with the Bush Clan, why did they fight tooth and nail to keep him from defeating their crony Dewhurst for the vacant Senate seat?

[txradioguy]

Still not playing   ^-^

Not really surprising.

[Oceander]

That can take some getting used to.   

Most narcotics do. 

[Sanguine]

It's not propaganda @txradioguy, it's fact.  At 29 Cruz was a "well respected" policy advisor for the Bush campaign in 2000 and was part of the legal team working on the recount.

Mighty thin gruel for you to project your fantasies on, @Right_in_Virginia.  But, if that's what you want to do, you go for it!  Excuse the rest of us when we yawn or ignore. 

[txradioguy]

   Because I already had a Dog in the hunt (Cruz), when Trump announced in June 2015, by July everything I suspected about Trump was cemented by his lust for publicity of the past 30 years. 
   He is a NY Liberal just like Schumer who, can't live without publicity either.

Funny thing is...originally I was a defender of Trump.  Have the posts on another site to prove it in case anyone wants to call BS...but the more I researched...the more I checked on thigns myself...the more I realized he wasn't and to this day isn't what he was being sold as.

[LateForLunch]

Funny thing is...originally I was a defender of Trump.  Have the posts on another site to prove it in case anyone wants to call BS...but the more I researched...the more I checked on thigns myself...the more I realized he wasn't and to this day isn't what he was being sold as.

That's an interesting comment, sieur! May I ask what he was being sold as?

[txradioguy]

That's an interesting comment, sieur! May I ask what he was being sold as?

A Republican and Conservative. 

He's neither.

[LateForLunch]

A Republican and Conservative. 

He's neither.

Well, there is some truth to that but not entirely. Any definition of a dynamic reality is transitory because by the time it is defined, it may have changed again. Let us hope that is the case with Trump in regard to things like his attitudes on ethanol, tariffs, eminent domain and other issues of free trade where he is more Wilsonian (PTUI!) than Reaganesque ( Hooray!!) 

Since the Buckley Rule is to vote for the MOST conservative candidate who can win, electing Trump was within the scope of that. Hill-O-Lies is certainly far to the left of even an "agrarian populist" position (to quote Mark Levin's appraisal of Trump's niche).

The real tests may be when Trump has to decide whether to go with a populist policy stance based on polling(for political expediency) or go with principled conservatism. He tends to be a fairly quick study so maybe by being surrounded by a lot of brilliant conservatives he will absorb some of their intelligence by osmosis.

[corbe]

  You're Grasping at straws @LateForLunch in bringing WFB into this, he saw Trump coming 16 years ago and this quote from him lays to waste the 'Buckley Rule' you quote.
   I do you an 'A' for Effort, though.

[Cyber Liberty]

Since the Buckley Rule is to vote for the MOST conservative candidate who can win, electing Trump was within the scope of that. Hill-O-Lies is certainly far to the left of even an "agrarian populist" position (to quote Mark Levin's appraisal of Trump's niche).

The only problem I have with "The Buckley Rule" is it requires a certain amount of political prognostication on the part of people who don't do that very much.  Instead, they have to rely on the abilities of others to tell them who's "electable."  With almost all MSM news being fake these days, the notion of who's electable ends up being decided by the leftists in the press. 

[musiclady]

  You're Grasping at straws @LateForLunch in bringing WFB into this, he saw Trump coming 16 years ago and this quote from him lays to waste the 'Buckley Rule' you quote.
   I do you an 'A' for Effort, though.

That is SUCH a prescient quote, @corbe

Too bad so many Republicans ignored it.

Or more likely, these days most Republicans voting for Trump have never even HEARD of Buckley.   

[txradioguy]

Well, there is some truth to that but not entirely. Any definition of a dynamic reality is transitory because by the time it is defined, it may have changed again. Let us hope that is the case with Trump in regard to things like his attitudes on ethanol, tariffs, eminent domain and other issues of free trade where he is more Wilsonian (PTUI!) than Reaganesque ( Hooray!!) 

Since the Buckley Rule is to vote for the MOST conservative candidate who can win, electing Trump was within the scope of that. Hill-O-Lies is certainly far to the left of even an "agrarian populist" position (to quote Mark Levin's appraisal of Trump's niche).

The real tests may be when Trump has to decide whether to go with a populist policy stance based on polling(for political expediency) or go with principled conservatism. He tends to be a fairly quick study so maybe by being surrounded by a lot of brilliant conservatives he will absorb some of their intelligence by osmosis.

We already know his stances on the things you mention.  They are well documented and unlikely to change.

Trump wasn't the most conservative candidate that could have won.  Only a Trump "true believer" or a foll thinks otherwise. And BTW I'm not talking about you in either category in this conversation.

There is no principle and there is no principled conservatism is what Trump is...what he stands for or what his policies will be.

Brilliant Conservatives...are these the ones he's vetting through BHO or ones we haven't seen him nominate yet?

At the end of the day...America got the President it deserved...NOT the one it needed.

[LateForLunch]

We already know his stances on the things you mention.  They are well documented and unlikely to change.

Trump wasn't the most conservative candidate that could have won.  Only a Trump "true believer" or a foll thinks otherwise. And BTW I'm not talking about you in either category in this conversation.

There is no principle and there is no principled conservatism is what Trump is...what he stands for or what his policies will be.

Brilliant Conservatives...are these the ones he's vetting through BHO or ones we haven't seen him nominate yet?

At the end of the day...America got the President it deserved...NOT the one it needed.

Come on, brother! Trump was clearly the most conservative candidate in the GENERAL ELECTION who could win. I didn't support DJT in the primaries (Cruz was my choice).  I cannot easily believe that a man of  your obviously above-average intellect did not know what I meant.

Much of the rest of your statement is stipulated but some of it is speculative. I accept the former only.

Mark Levin has endorsed some of Trump's picks for cabinet posts as reliably conservative and with all due respect  (and that is great) I trust the Great One's appraisal more than most of the posters on this forum, myself inclusive. Concerning the concerns of character deficiency and lack of ideological integrity, in my own experience, speculation is only generally useful in oil-drilling, investment banking and theoretical physics. 

What may be has not happened yet and has therefore contains little substance in discussions of what is, not what might be.

[sneakypete]

He has spent more time NOT working for or with W than he ever did for him.  Longest serving Solicitor General in the history of the State of Texas.  5 years teaching law at UT Austin.  Senator since 2012.

Less than two years working for Bush 43.

@txradioguy

Thanks for removing my major concern about Cruz.  I was worried he had been corrupted by the alleged Republican branch of the Kennedy family.

It speaks highly of anyone who backs away from them.

[sneakypete]

Funny thing is...originally I was a defender of Trump.  Have the posts on another site to prove it in case anyone wants to call BS...but the more I researched...the more I checked on thigns myself...the more I realized he wasn't and to this day isn't what he was being sold as.

@txradioguy

Name ONE single presidential candidate since Goldwater that was what he claimed to be.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

Thanks for removing my major concern about Cruz.  I was worried he had been corrupted by the alleged Republican branch of the Kennedy family.

It speaks highly of anyone who backs away from them.

Just to alleviate your concern even more there is this too:

Former President George W. Bush reportedly ripped into Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at a weekend gathering of donors to his brother's presidential campaign, according to a published report Monday.

Politico reported that Bush said of Cruz, "I just don't like the guy," at the event, which was held Sunday night in Denver.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/20/george-w-bush-reportedly-rips-ted-cruz-to-jeb-bush-donors.html