Book of Jeremiah
Platinum Member
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,528
- 1,170
If that were the plan? The Democrats and Media would not be fighting him this hard.
CDZ Lowering the bar on truth.
- Thread starter Jeddahite
- Start date
Jeri-----do not fall into the cosmic CONSPIRACYT PIT-------there is no
COSMIC PLAN-------the repubs and the demos -----both the organizations
and the potential candidates are not all that ORGANIZED in their thinking.
Like us-------THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT's GOING ON---either
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #23
The GOP can't win with Trump, and he will surely lose the Senate and probably the House.
He will not be the nominee.
Mister Beale understands completely that Trump is a Progressive Statist.
He will not be the nominee.
Mister Beale understands completely that Trump is a Progressive Statist.
are you willing go offer ODDS????
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #25
Jere, they aren't. The Dems prefer Trump as the GOP candidate. It's Cruz/Carson and the moderates who are fighting him so hard.
yes-----they are horrified------and fighting hard------but they just do not have
any CHARISMA
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #27
$100 donation each to the winner's favorite charity.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #28
Cruz has evil charisma, Christie some boyish charisma, but Trump is simply a force of nature charisma.
my bet -----trump will be nominated by the "grand old elephant"----and he will win by
a narrow margin
poor christie--------a kewpie doll boy He would have had a chance if he
lost more weight and------earlier-----it's too late now------he will always be
pudgy christie
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #31
Your on. He does not get the nomination and runs as a third party and loses.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 66,934
- 62,705
- 3,605
If the media REALLY didn't want him to be there? If they really didn't care, or didn't want the folks to pay attention? They just wouldn't give him any coverage.
Ron Paul had a similar following. He seriously did.
But the media ignored him. Nope, there is something more going on.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #33
Ron Paul was not an advertising sale of any worth, whereas Trump is monster.
If the media REALLY didn't want him to be there? If they really didn't care, or didn't want the folks to pay attention? They just wouldn't give him any coverage.
Ron Paul had a similar following. He seriously did.
But the media ignored him. Nope, there is something more going on.
your imagination is running wild
- Sep 16, 2012
- 66,934
- 62,705
- 3,605
Ron Paul was not an advertising sale of any worth, whereas Trump is monster.
So you're saying he's good for ad revenue?
I can buy that argument.
While I have been trying to figure out if Trump is a Manchurian candidate for the Clinton's or a real candidate, this question of why the media is covering him so much if the CFR and the establishment seem to hate him that much.
Generally, the way they make popular candidates disappear is by just ignoring them. Unless they are rich. Ross Perot bought his own TV time, so they couldn't do that to him. But they did that with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
However, if the establishment and the CFR really hate Trump that much, why not just have all the network and print media just blackball him?
It had to be either the ad revenues. . . or a conspiracy.
Well, now it's just too damn late. He's the front runner. You can't not cover the front runner. Although they did do that to Ron Paul in a few states. lol
320 Years of History
Gold Member
Perhaps, but I don't think so. I think that writing laws requires lawyers, and that's why political leaders have them on their staffs. Politics is for people and one need not be an attorney to be able to lead people, identify policy positions, and listen to the input of experts re: the pros and cons of any given position.
Politicians should be people who care about more than themselves and their own interests. They should be people who aren't afraid to make mistakes, but who will "do the right thing" (when they fail and when they succeed) even though it may not be ideal for themselves. In short, they just need to be very smart, inspirational, and have impeccable integrity.
What I definitely think is that the electorate should not need to be scholars to sort through the BS that our power-hungry leaders and would-be leaders' self serving demagoguery. Unfortunately, given the highly partisan nature of politics now, given that we live in a time of the "politics of no," that's about what one must these days be in order to make sense of and/or rely upon much of what political leaders say. Our leaders, moreover, know damn well that most folks just aren't intellectually astute critical observers/listeners, and that most of them don't want to be.
When it comes to any matter of policy, there will be ones that serve our nation's best interest and ones that serve ours or others' individual best interests, and either may pertain to the near or long term. As a result, each of us is called sometimes to decide whether to subjugate our personal interests for the good of the whole and vice versa. Political leaders and aspirants shouldn't confound and complicate making those sorts of choices, but that's exactly what they do.
It's disingenuous that they do, but the real blame rests with us. Elected (or running) politicians want what they want, and one can't entirely blame them for doing what it takes to get it. The real blame falls on partisan voters who will defend whatever BS comes from their party. Republican voters need to remain circumspect and call out Republican officials and candidates when they ignore the truth, make empty claims and so on. Democratic voters need to do the same with their party leaders.
The curious thing about my views re: Mr. Trump is that were he (1) to dispense with his empty assertions and falsehoods and (2) not have made so damn many of both, I'd be willing to vote for him in the general election. When he first announced his candidacy, I had high hopes for him. Regrettably, he's pandered to the lowest common denominators of emotional appeals to gain his following, and that just doesn't work for me.
I don't want leaders who'll tell me what I want to hear and what makes me feel good. I want leaders who will present the situation without bias and who will next lay out detailed solutions that show me how the nation will resolve the problems. Mr. Trump simply has not done that. I can live with truths that are "hard to hear," but I cannot countenance misrepresentations of fact, be they direct or indirect by dint of context, for example.
Mr. Trump is not the smartest guy around, but he's plenty smart enough. He's definitely inspirational, which is a testament to his leadership skills. Unfortunately, I just don't trust him, and that is entirely because he's bent the truth too often for someone asking me to vote for them to President of the U.S.
I can tell you exactly when I "lost it" with Mr. Trump. When he agreed not to run as an independent if he didn't win the Republican nomination is that point. The man averred first that if he didn't get the nomination, he'd run as an independent. That was fine with me for at that point, I was willing to vote for him either way. Nobody made him state he'd run as an independent, but he say that he did. It was at that point that it became clear to me that Mr. Trump would say/do whatever he needed to win because he wanted to win and not because he was fully committed to his attestations.
That he has recently has intimated that he may change his mind re: his pledge just made matters worse in my mind. He says the pledge he signed was a two-way deal. It sure doesn't look that way to me.
I _____________________ will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is.
I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.
Does that look like a two-way deal to you? It's clearly a pledge that applies to one and only one person. He should never have signed it, but he did, and when he did, I was done with him.I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The Left Get's Schooled In Constitutional Law.- Started by jackflash
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
illegal alien fined $1.82 million, $500 for every day in the US after removal order
- Started by scruffy
- Replies: 0
