Serious question...will Trump secure the election for Hillary (or Bern)

[Compost]

Not disproven? You're either in denial or utterly ignorant of events occurring in your own lifetime, Buttercup. So are the "majority" of Americans that answer polls saying they think "he lied about Iraq". Now your Bush fixation is transferred to Jeb! who will only become the GOP candidate if absolutely everybody else drops out.

Bush said there were WMDs. There were no WMD's.. Bush lied.

Bush said Saddam was working with Al Qaeda. Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda. Bush lied.

Bush Lied. People Died. I might vote for Trump for no other reason than he'll purge the Party of the Bush Crime family once and for all.

Nice. Chant the chant of the mindless. Thank you for sharing.

 

[JoeB131]

Nice. Chant the chant of the mindless. Thank you for sharing.

No, mindless is taking their word for it and demanding NO ACCOUNTABILITY!

5000 Americans died. 35,000 were injured. We spent well over a trillion dollars and will probably be reaping the consequences of Bush's actions for years.

"Welp, the intelligence must have been wrong" doesn't quite cover it. People get fired from their jobs EVERY DAY for a lot less.
5000 Americans and maybe a million Iraqis died, and no one is responsible? Is that what you are going with?

Bush Lied. People Died.

You know what, I don't like Trump, but I'm glad SOMEONE is finally calling him on it.

 

[Compost]

Nice. Chant the chant of the mindless. Thank you for sharing.

No, mindless is taking their word for it and demanding NO ACCOUNTABILITY!

5000 Americans died. 35,000 were injured. We spent well over a trillion dollars and will probably be reaping the consequences of Bush's actions for years.

"Welp, the intelligence must have been wrong" doesn't quite cover it. People get fired from their jobs EVERY DAY for a lot less.
5000 Americans and maybe a million Iraqis died, and no one is responsible? Is that what you are going with?

Bush Lied. People Died.

You know what, I don't like Trump, but I'm glad SOMEONE is finally calling him on it.

More chanting other's words. When you find your own voice maybe you and I can have a conversation. Till then. Good bye.

 

[JoeB131]

More chanting other's words. When you find your own voice maybe you and I can have a conversation. Till then. Good bye.

Your craven retreat is duly noted, coward.

 

[davecmarino]

Obama lied. Trained AQI to fight against Syria to effect regime change in 2012. Knowing full well that the outcome of arming these guys would spill over into Iraq but since they were allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, he didn't give a shit. Backed the MB play for regime change in Egypt and Lybia also. I don't hear any lefties bitching about it at all. How many Syrians have been killed or made homeless by Obama. How many families have been destroyed? But it is all the right's fault. Drink some more kook-aid you bunch of lefty aholes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Obama lied. Trained AQI to fight against Syria to effect regime change in 2012. Knowing full well that the outcome of arming these guys would spill over into Iraq but since they were allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, he didn't give a shit. Backed the MB play for regime change in Egypt and Lybia also. I don't hear any lefties bitching about it at all. How many Syrians have been killed or made homeless by Obama. How many families have been destroyed? But it is all the right's fault. Drink some more kook-aid you bunch of lefty aholes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the problem here is that you think that none of these things would have happened had Obama not tried to influence events.

Assad has a civil war on his hands because the Zionists and Saudis and Turks backed various factions against him. Also, he's kind of a hapless idiot. Obama did **** up by listening to the Zionists and getting us involved in that. But there wasn't any deceit on the level of Bush claiming there were nukes that Saddam was about to give Al Qaeda.

I also think getting involved in Libya's civil war was a bad idea, but I don't think Qaddaffi would have survived in any event. Ditto, Mubarek.

 

[LoneLaugher]

As I sit and watch Trump bloviate and mouth off about everything and nothing at the same time...how the media (besides Fox) pretty much give him full ground to say whatever he wants...I mean...if you are for a Democrat win - why on earth go after Trump?? He is the best chance Hillary has to win.
Trump is all noise and no policy. Hollering out what his base wants to hear without a single clue as to just how he would do it. How is it this guy can pretty much claim anything he wants and his followers blindly believe it.
This happened 8 years ago....remember fellow conservatives?
History does repeat itself...except this time the candidate will lose.

Awwwwwww. Look at you! Just couldn't do it, could ya. Nutbags just cannot speak ill of their own without soothing the pain by speaking ill of the opposition.

Every time a nutbag tries to speak truth about the absolute farce that is Donald Trump.....he or she MUST mention that Trump is just like Obama or Bernie. And so it is written.....and so it will be done.

Loser.

 

[Mac1958]

As I sit and watch Trump bloviate and mouth off about everything and nothing at the same time...how the media (besides Fox) pretty much give him full ground to say whatever he wants...I mean...if you are for a Democrat win - why on earth go after Trump?? He is the best chance Hillary has to win. Trump is all noise and no policy. Hollering out what his base wants to hear without a single clue as to just how he would do it. How is it this guy can pretty much claim anything he wants and his followers blindly believe it. This happened 8 years ago....remember fellow conservatives? History does repeat itself...except this time the candidate will lose.

Yeah. We're in uncharted waters right now, Trump really is the wild card of all wild cards.

I can understand the Democrats' hope that he gets the nomination, but I don't know if that's a great idea. Look at our culture right now, what it values, what it doesn't value. Who it makes celebrities, how it treasures empty calories and platitudes.

Seems to me the Democrats are far better at messaging than the Republicans, maybe they should just stay the course and not get over-confident.
.

 

[JoeB131]

[Yeah. We're in uncharted waters right now, Trump really is the wild card of all wild cards.

I can understand the Democrats' hope that he gets the nomination, but I don't know if that's a great idea. Look at our culture right now, what it values, what it doesn't value. Who it makes celebrities, how it treasures empty calories and platitudes.

Seems to me the Democrats are far better at messaging than the Republicans, maybe they should just stay the course and not get over-confident.
.

Trump is only a wild card IF the 2/3rds of republicans ignore common sense and support him if he wins the nomination because they can't agree on an alternative, and then continue to support him despite his flaws.

So the question becomes, do rank and file Republicans love America more than they hate the Clintons. I wouldn't put good money on that.

I make the comparison to Weimar Germany, where a lot of people who just plain old should have known better supported the Bohemian Corporal on the assumption they could control him once he got into office.

 

[LoneLaugher]

As I sit and watch Trump bloviate and mouth off about everything and nothing at the same time...how the media (besides Fox) pretty much give him full ground to say whatever he wants...I mean...if you are for a Democrat win - why on earth go after Trump?? He is the best chance Hillary has to win. Trump is all noise and no policy. Hollering out what his base wants to hear without a single clue as to just how he would do it. How is it this guy can pretty much claim anything he wants and his followers blindly believe it. This happened 8 years ago....remember fellow conservatives? History does repeat itself...except this time the candidate will lose.

Yeah. We're in uncharted waters right now, Trump really is the wild card of all wild cards.

I can understand the Democrats' hope that he gets the nomination, but I don't know if that's a great idea. Look at our culture right now, what it values, what it doesn't value. Who it makes celebrities, how it treasures empty calories and platitudes.

Seems to me the Democrats are far better at messaging than the Republicans, maybe they should just stay the course and not get over-confident.
.

If the Dems were far better at messaging, President Obama would have a 60% approval rating.

 

[Redfish]

Donald Trump will not let the Republicans push him out of the nomination through the Republican Super Delegate votes in a brokered convention, without him giving retribution via running on an independent ticket..... he's got them by the balls at this point. And if he runs third party, then there is not enough republican votes to secure the win for the establishment candidate.

If, a republican establishment candidate can get enough votes/delegates in the primary to beat Trump in a fair contest, then and only then, perhaps, there will not be a revolt of Trump supporters...imo.

The GOP ticket will be Trump/Rubio------------book it.

maybe, maybe trump doesn't want Rubio and wont tow the establishment line forcing him down his throat... ya never know with Trump....

the repubs should know by now a Rubio vp wont do crapola to hold trump back from doing what trump wants to do....

plus rubio will have to keep his tongue tied and never speak out against Trump, for anything foolish Trump may say or do between now and the end of the primaries....which could be hard for him to do...since Trump tends to say some pretty outrageous things.... if rubio says a thing negative against Trump, then bye bye Rubio because Trump will go after him in the most nastiest of ways....

I get it, you don't like Trump, I understand that.

Now, please tell us what Hillary Clinton has done in her miserable life that makes you want her to sit in the oval office.

Why would you want someone that 65% of americans describe as a liar as their first choice description? Why would you want someone who violated federal security laws and is being investigated by the FBI for possible felony indictments? Why would you want someone who stood by while her husband serially abused women?

I just do not understand what you dems see in her. Is it just the D behind her name? does nothing else matter to you?

She's very smart, she has experience as a two time Senator and as Secretary of State, she works really hard, not a slacker, she knows how to work across party lines and Repubs sang her praise when she was their coworker in the Senate, and she will give it her all, to be the best President for this Nation, she would have the "first female as President'' at stake, and I don't believe for one nanosecond, she wants to harm this country or that her policies would harm this Country...I agree with most all of her policies, and that is what the Presidential vote is about...

you agree with her "policies". Care to tell us exactly what they are?

1. abortion on demand up til the moment of birth
2. huge welfare state
3. lying to get votes
4. doing a black accent to get black votes
5. supporting a husband who serially abused women
6. directly caused the deaths of 4 americans for political reasons
7. got huge speaking fees from wallstreet
8. violated federal laws regarding protection of classified data and lied about it
9. lied about landing under sniper fire
10. took foreign money as bribes through the Clinton foundation
11. owes favors to Soros and other American haters

But if you have other "policies" that you agree with, post them.

 

[Redfish]

and do you think an angry, old, corrupt, lying woman has the right temperament? Do you think an angry old socialist has the right temperament? Do you think a lifetime politician who has never lived in the real world has the right temperament?

Yes, absolutely. Much, much more so than Trump.

Trump has demonstrated in this campaign that he is an unstable, thin-skinned, reckless, flippant, offensive demagogue, with little understanding of foreign issues.

He does not have the temperament to be President.

yeah, and Hillary does a good dog imitation. woof woof woof

 

[davecmarino]

Obama lied. Trained AQI to fight against Syria to effect regime change in 2012. Knowing full well that the outcome of arming these guys would spill over into Iraq but since they were allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, he didn't give a shit. Backed the MB play for regime change in Egypt and Lybia also. I don't hear any lefties bitching about it at all. How many Syrians have been killed or made homeless by Obama. How many families have been destroyed? But it is all the right's fault. Drink some more kook-aid you bunch of lefty aholes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the problem here is that you think that none of these things would have happened had Obama not tried to influence events.

Assad has a civil war on his hands because the Zionists and Saudis and Turks backed various factions against him. Also, he's kind of a hapless idiot. Obama did **** up by listening to the Zionists and getting us involved in that. But there wasn't any deceit on the level of Bush claiming there were nukes that Saddam was about to give Al Qaeda.

I also think getting involved in Libya's civil war was a bad idea, but I don't think Qaddaffi would have survived in any event. Ditto, Mubarek.

Ya Joe. Like you know anything. Assad had protests on his hands up until July 2011. Right around this time Obama put sanctions on Syria and started petitioning the UN to also put sanctions on them. By 2012, we had committed about 500million in funding to training opposition forces of which our administration states they only got a handful of fighters. Give us a break. They armed the shit out of those rebels with small arms. It has also come out that our CIA may have had operations in the conflict prior to 2012.

Wake up and get yourself some reality. We backed all these plays for our Muslim allies. They wouldn't have done shit if we had not backed them up.

You just want to give your democrats a pass on their nasty war mongering.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Ya Joe. Like you know anything. Assad had protests on his hands up until July 2011. Right around this time Obama put sanctions on Syria and started petitioning the UN to also put sanctions on them. By 2012, we had committed about 500million in funding to training opposition forces of which our administration states they only got a handful of fighters. Give us a break. They armed the shit out of those rebels with small arms. It has also come out that our CIA may have had operations in the conflict prior to 2012.

Wake up and get yourself some reality. We backed all these plays for our Muslim allies. They wouldn't have done shit if we had not backed them up.

You just want to give your democrats a pass on their nasty war mongering.

I didn't argue it was a good policy. I argued that it wasn't as catastrophic as Bush lying about WMD's and getting 5000 Americans killed.

Bush pissed away a trillion dollars in Iraq. 500 million spent arming the FSA is a drop in the bucket compared to that.

 

[Missourian]

Take a look at the Electoral map.

Looks pretty familiar, right? Except...what are those new states in the toss-up category?

PA and WI? Who of the Presidential candidates do you think is going to do best up there? The anti-free trade bring manufacturing back to America Trump, or the Pro-Nafta, Pro-TPP Hillary?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what other Republican candidate even has a snowballs chance in hell of opening up those states to a serious probability of redness? Cruz? Fat chance. Rubio? Not likely. Bush? C'mon.

Trump is the only one that CAN beat Hillary.

 

[JoeB131]

Looks pretty familiar, right? Except...what are those new states in the toss-up category?

PA and WI? Who of the Presidential candidates do you think is going to do best up there? The anti-free trade bring manufacturing back to America Trump, or the Pro-Nafta, Pro-TPP Hillary?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what other Republican candidate even has a snowballs chance in hell of opening up those states to a serious probability of redness? Cruz? Fat chance. Rubio? Not likely. Bush? C'mon.

Trump is the only one that CAN beat Hillary.

Except EVERY YEAR, they claim WI and OH and MN are in the "Toss Up" category. And every year, the Republicans pull ads out of those states at the last minute so they can concentrate on losing OH and FL.

THe thing is, Trump MIGHT gain working class votes in Rust belt states, but he's just as likely to lose Hispanic and Female votes due to his racist and misogynistic comments.

And then you have the ultimate wild card. That Establishment Republicans will figure that it would easier to work with Hillary for 4 years than this nutjob.

 

[Missourian]

Looks pretty familiar, right? Except...what are those new states in the toss-up category?

PA and WI? Who of the Presidential candidates do you think is going to do best up there? The anti-free trade bring manufacturing back to America Trump, or the Pro-Nafta, Pro-TPP Hillary?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what other Republican candidate even has a snowballs chance in hell of opening up those states to a serious probability of redness? Cruz? Fat chance. Rubio? Not likely. Bush? C'mon.

Trump is the only one that CAN beat Hillary.

Except EVERY YEAR, they claim WI and OH and MN are in the "Toss Up" category. And every year, the Republicans pull ads out of those states at the last minute so they can concentrate on losing OH and FL.

THe thing is, Trump MIGHT gain working class votes in Rust belt states, but he's just as likely to lose Hispanic and Female votes due to his racist and misogynistic comments.

And then you have the ultimate wild card. That Establishment Republicans will figure that it would easier to work with Hillary for 4 years than this nutjob.

Trump won every demographic in New Hampshire, including women. He is also first choice among Republican Hispanic voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/09/us/elections/new-hampshire-republican-poll.html

Donald Trump Is Now Leading Among Hispanic Republicans in Florida

...so they aren't hearing what you are hearing.

I believe, and I think you do too, that Trump CAN win the blue collar Democrats in PA and WI. At least if Hillary is the nominee. Sanders changes that equation, but I don't expect a Sanders win to be likely.

And I also don't believe the Establishment will turn to Hillary. a Hillary win almost assures an 80% left leaning Supreme Court for the rest of most of our lifetimes...I doubt they are willing to risk that.

 

[JoeB131]

Trump won every demographic in New Hampshire, including women. He is also first choice among Republican Hispanic voters.

No, he lost every Demographic, as MOST people voted for SOMEONE ELSE. They just couldn't agree on who "Someone else" was. He got less votes than Bernie and only slightly more than Hillary.

I believe, and I think you do too, that Trump CAN win the blue collar Democrats in PA and WI. At least if Hillary is the nominee. Sanders changes that equation, but I don't expect a Sanders win to be likely.

I think it's POSSIBLE that he might win them, but it's equally likely Republican women in those same states will turn on him because of his consistent misogyny.

And I also don't believe the Establishment will turn to Hillary. a Hillary win almost assures an 80% left leaning Supreme Court for the rest of most of our lifetimes...I doubt they are willing to risk that.

Since Obama will probably appoint Scalia's replacement, I don't think that will be a factor. If Trump is the nominee, you are going to see comprimise on a SCOTUS nominee really quickly.

 

[davecmarino]

Ya Joe. Like you know anything. Assad had protests on his hands up until July 2011. Right around this time Obama put sanctions on Syria and started petitioning the UN to also put sanctions on them. By 2012, we had committed about 500million in funding to training opposition forces of which our administration states they only got a handful of fighters. Give us a break. They armed the shit out of those rebels with small arms. It has also come out that our CIA may have had operations in the conflict prior to 2012.

Wake up and get yourself some reality. We backed all these plays for our Muslim allies. They wouldn't have done shit if we had not backed them up.

You just want to give your democrats a pass on their nasty war mongering.

I didn't argue it was a good policy. I argued that it wasn't as catastrophic as Bush lying about WMD's and getting 5000 Americans killed.

Bush pissed away a trillion dollars in Iraq. 500 million spent arming the FSA is a drop in the bucket compared to that.

Bush spent 5.849 Trillion in debt over his 8 years. Obama will have spent around 10 trillion in his 8 years.

You can thank Obama for reigniting the Cold War.

So much for your drop in the bucket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Bush spent 5.849 Trillion in debt over his 8 years. Obama will have spent around 10 trillion in his 8 years.

I think your Math is kind of off.

Okay-

National Debt when Bush took office.

5,807,463,412,200.06

When he left.

11,909,829,003,511.75

He more than doubled it.

Where it is now.

18,825,061,664,535.94

Now, keep in mind, most of the bad numbers were things Bush baked into the pie- his tax cuts for rich people, his wars, his recession. Things Obama couldn't change right away.

Why do you guy only care about deficits when the other guy is in office?