Why Are You Opposed to Trump?

[Boss]

Your analysis makes sense BOSS. It almost seems Cruz is being found guilty by association with the RNC, when the reality is, he is an outsider in the traditional sense. Donald just more outsidered him, and the RNC was so clueless about the anger level. It looks to be too late for him now however.

But it's really NOT too late. The Trump brigade wants us to think that it's too late, that Cruz has no chance, that if Cruz wins it's a "rigged system" or whatever... those things are only going to serve in dividing us more should Cruz prevail, but this is very much still anybody's race to win.

In 1860, Lincoln trailed Seward in the delegate count going into the GOP convention.... it wasn't over... it wasn't a rigged system... Seward simply failed to win the nomination on the first ballot and Lincoln eventually secured the delegates to reach a majority and be the nominee. This happened again with Eisenhower.... he trailed the establishment pick, Taft.... same thing, Taft didn't have a majority... only a plurality... he didn't WIN the nomination.

So this can still go to Cruz in a brokered convention. Or... it could be like the brokered convention in 1976, where Ford goes into the convention with the plurality but not the majority and Ronald Reagan was unsuccessful in securing delegates on subsequent ballots and Ford eventually did. Trump could wield his phenomenal deal-making ability at the convention and win on the second ballot.

But... It's not "too late" and it is never "over" until someone gets 1,237 delegates locked up.

So at this point, you are suggesting as long as Trump doesn't have 1237 going in, that is the only hope Cruz has left? That's my impression.

Cruz getting enough of the RNC to lean on Pence for the endorsement certainly suggest that Cruz knows he can't let Donny get 1237 before Cleveland. But in all reality, it's a long shot, even if DT doesn't have it before the convention, he has the deeper pockets to move delegates.

I would have to get 5 to 1 odds to bet on Cruz now, and I still probably like the other side of that bet.

I never said it was going to be a cake walk for Cruz. I realize at this point it is a long shot... hence the Fiorina nomination. I think he is banking on this pulling the women's vote out west and giving him a windfall in California to put him over Trump for those massive delegates (possibly). That, coupled with some other critical wins and Cruz is right back in this thing, not far behind Trump who will not get the 1,237 by the convention. Now... if Cruz loses big in California to Trump... all bets are off... Cruz literally has a snowball's chance in hell.

But the point is... this ain't over and it's not likely to be over until the last primary in California and possibly not until after the first ballot at the convention. The "fat lady" is still waiting on the limo at her hotel.

 

[jillian]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness. It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.

IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?

For me, Trump's direct approaches to immigration, trade, national security, jobs and the economy are favorable factors, as opposed to Clinton's vacillation on these issues. (In other words, he says what he WILL do, whereas she talks about what she WON'T do.)

Please avoid name calling and explain the specific standards you employ in evaluating these candidates.

he's a bigoted misogynist populist

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness. It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.

IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?

For me, Trump's direct approaches to immigration, trade, national security, jobs and the economy are favorable factors, as opposed to Clinton's vacillation on these issues. (In other words, he says what he WILL do, whereas she talks about what she WON'T do.)

Please avoid name calling and explain the specific standards you employ in evaluating these candidates.

he's a bigoted misogynist populist

He’s also a warmonger, a liar, a fraud, and completely ignorant of sound, responsible governance.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I think it is a bit more subtle than simply saying because he donated 10% more to Dems than Reps over a 20 year period he is clearly more democratic. I haven't , nor do I intend to, spend my time analyzing each donation he has made with the idea it will give me some insight to his political leanings. Sounds like somebody is feeling a little butt hurt because her canidate is getting slapped around by an orange clown. Having no dog in the fight can help with objectivity.

I would consider it extremely helpful if you Trumpwits would make an effort to read and understand more than just the first line of a post before gasbagging your "wisdom" back.

Had you bothered to do so before getting your Trump panties in a ruffle with the need to defend the Orange Messiah, you would have noticed in the third paragraph that during specific election cycles, particularly the one that gave us the wonders of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Trump's donation balance shifted SIGNIFICANTLY more than 10% difference to the Democrats.

Unless, y'know, the new Common Core math tells us that $77,200 is only 10% more than $24,250 and $40,500 is only 10% more than $17,250.

First, if you have ever read any of my post or are capable of remembering them, you will know I am not a Trumpster.

Second, if you think you can accurately chart the political leanings of Donald Trump based on how much money he gave to who and when, then I am guessing that man caused global climate change science also makes sense to you.

BTW- the 10% figure was based on the numbers you provided-

Between 1989 and 2010, The Donald gave $314,300 to Democratic groups and candidates and $290,600 to Republicans, according to a Daily Caller analysis of records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.
This shows about $24k difference of around $300k to each party, roughly 10% more to the left than the right over 20 years. Just like I stated earlier. In my opinion, this is not a very significant difference.

I only made a minor point that he has been mostly politically neutral for most of his business career. I stand by that statement.

Emotion and arrogance can make some people very unpleasant.

First, I have both seen and remembered your posts, and you can try to fool yourself all you like. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter if it calls itself a swan.

Second, if you think you CAN'T tell a person's political leanings by who they support financially, then you're kidding yourself about yet another thing. What it has to do with climate change, I have no clue.

By the way, AGAIN, there was more to the post than the first couple of sentences you skimmed before sallying forth to defend Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue's honor. Am I going to say it for you yet a third time, in the vain hope that you'll FINALLY notice it? No.

You only made the INCORRECT point that you want to believe he's been politically neutral, and you can "stand by it" all you like. It's still bullshit.

Ignorance is even more unpleasant.

Ok, but why do you find in necessary to be so nasty to those you disagree with? Are you a happy person?

I'm not. I am perfectly capable of being polite to sensible, thoughtful posters . . . as, indeed, I was to you when we first started talking. But where some people do not suffer fools gladly, I don't suffer them at all. Ignorance is annoying, and stupidity (ignorance which is proud of itself and determined to continue that way) is infuriating. I do not offer respect when it is demanded, only when it is earned. And stupid only earns contempt.

And yes, not that it's any of your business, but I am generally quite happy and good-natured, probably due to the fact that I'm not repressing my true feelings all the time.

My question is, why do people who have no problem with the way Trump acts constantly have their panties in a wad about "nasty", "rude", etc. in anyone who isn't named Donald Trump? I at least come up with better insults than the rudimentary schoolyard "you're an ugly loser!" crap he spews.

Sorry, I just find you very caustic. I enjoy debate and discussion, but with you there are always personal attacks. People can disagree without making personal attacks, they can do it with respect and dignity, and not turn it into a contest of who has the best insult.

I am here to listen to others and express my thoughts, and hopefully learn something along the way. Why are you here?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Trump supporters are a lot like two year olds who through their vanilla cone away because they wanted chocolate.

And Hellary supporters are like the parents who appease that 2 year old by buying him a chocolate cone, because nobody should ever be unhappy.

 

[Chuz Life]

Trump supporters are a lot like two year olds who through their vanilla cone away because they wanted chocolate.

And Hellary supporters are like the parents who appease that 2 year old by buying him a chocolate cone, because nobody should ever be unhappy.

Close.

But , more than likely the Hitlary supporterz would take whatever action was needed to force the ice cream vendor to give the child what he wanted and then force him to pay for the clean up of the vanilla cone too.