CDZ Should Republicans support Trump because, if nothing else, he's the Republican nominee?

[MarathonMike]

My intent was to put the choice between Trump and Clinton in a simpler context. I guess you could call it a jaundiced view.

 

[OldLady]

there are some career politicians who put their own personal power before country.....most if not all politicians have only personal interests in mind or that they are calculatingly dishonest as a matter of routine.

Power is addictive, but I don't know if I can say "all;" certainly it's not all of them who are motivated by personal power. I think many of them are, but more often I think that most of them truly think their policy ideas are truly in the nation's best interest. The bigger and more specific problem is that too few of them are objective enough about the facts, their own views and those of others to discern what policies offer the greatest opportunity for indeed being "the best" choice ("the best" policy) they could make at the time.

There's also the reality that the nature and scope of information that is today available to inform sage policy making is so vast that it's all but impossible for elected leaders to learn it all, apply it all and arrive at what is indeed "the best" choice at the time. That the world isn't as simple as it was some 100+ years ago presents a very real challenge to any individual or group's ability to govern well.

Combine that reality with human nature and, well, here we are. What we need are elected leaders who can separate themselves from the decisions they must make. How does one reliably find folks capable of doing that? Frankly, I don't know. Short of being personally and closely associated with an individual, I don't think it's possible to tell whether s/he is such a person and I'm certain that individuals are able to make themselves seem to be such a person. At the end of the day, one can only judge retroactively and commit to "tossing out" the ones who don't live up to that ideal.

Either I typed that wrong or something happened to the quote. I think I said I don't agree that most if not all have only personal interests in mind. The theory that NO ONE in Washington is fit for the task is a simplistic and inaccurate statement.

 

[320 Years of History]

there are some career politicians who put their own personal power before country.....most if not all politicians have only personal interests in mind or that they are calculatingly dishonest as a matter of routine.

Power is addictive, but I don't know if I can say "all;" certainly it's not all of them who are motivated by personal power. I think many of them are, but more often I think that most of them truly think their policy ideas are truly in the nation's best interest. The bigger and more specific problem is that too few of them are objective enough about the facts, their own views and those of others to discern what policies offer the greatest opportunity for indeed being "the best" choice ("the best" policy) they could make at the time.

There's also the reality that the nature and scope of information that is today available to inform sage policy making is so vast that it's all but impossible for elected leaders to learn it all, apply it all and arrive at what is indeed "the best" choice at the time. That the world isn't as simple as it was some 100+ years ago presents a very real challenge to any individual or group's ability to govern well.

Combine that reality with human nature and, well, here we are. What we need are elected leaders who can separate themselves from the decisions they must make. How does one reliably find folks capable of doing that? Frankly, I don't know. Short of being personally and closely associated with an individual, I don't think it's possible to tell whether s/he is such a person and I'm certain that individuals are able to make themselves seem to be such a person. At the end of the day, one can only judge retroactively and commit to "tossing out" the ones who don't live up to that ideal.

Either I typed that wrong or something happened to the quote. I think I said I don't agree that most if not all have only personal interests in mind. The theory that NO ONE in Washington is fit for the task is a simplistic and inaccurate statement.

Red:
You didn't type something wrong. It was clear that was your intent. My comments are just that, comments, but not a refutation of your ideas. I aimed (perhaps unsuccessfully?) to provide some of my thoughts vis a vis your comment, to provide a bit of nuance to the discussion. While I think personal power plays a role, a meaningful one, ascribing the matter to that is, to use your words, too a simplistic characterization. I was hoping to toss in some fodder that moves the discussion to "the next level" and away from the "easy" explanation....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Here's the funny of threads like this


Liberals

" Republicans should feel no obligation to vote for Trump simply because he's the parties nomination"

"Sanders supporters are being babies and need to get over it and support Hillary now that she's the nominee"

 

[sealybobo]

Okay, so you like the idea of Trump as President or you don't. That is what it is, and what it is isn't the point of this thread. This thread is about how folks, Republicans, can say the scathing things they have, I have in mind Sen. McCain especially but singularly, yet continue to support the nominee.

Clearly some Republicans have decided Trump has gone too far and they won't support him. That makes sense to me. I certainly wouldn't support someone whom I think is an utter mess, regardless of whether I belong to the same party or not.

At some point, mustn't one put country ahead of party and politics? I mean really...No matter how bad one thinks Hillary Clinton may be for the U.S., even if her Presidency would mean another four years of "Obama-ism," at the very least, there is no chance she is going to accidentally piss off someone and thereby create the kind of turmoil that could lead to global conflict on the scale of WWI. Regardless of all else, the simple fact is that the U.S. needs a relatively peaceful world and Donald Trump isn't the sort of character to foment much peace....

"Psychic's" Sidebar :

It's not as though the "timing" isn't about right for another major U.S. war...War of 1812, "Banana Wars" and WWI...just saying...​

End of sidebar.

​

Chris Shays: Why I'm voting for Hillary Clinton

During the 34 years I served as a Republican elected official in Connecticut, 13 years in the State House of Representatives, and 21 years in Congress, I always voted for our Republican candidate for governor and our Republican candidate for president.

Always, but not this time. Donald Trump lost me a long time ago.

I know some want to stick it to the so-called establishment, reject the status quo, and they see Trump as their vehicle. And I know some Republicans dislike President Obama, and have such a strong dislike for Hillary Clinton, they are willing to vote for a man they know does not have the temperament, knowledge or experience to be president.

In fact, I think many Republicans know Donald Trump could cause great damage to our country and the world at large, and still plan to vote for him. But not me. He represents practically everything I was taught not to be, and everything my wife and I taught our daughter not to be.

Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president, will be getting my vote, not reluctantly, but with a strong conviction that she will be a good president.

She has made some mistakes and I would love it if she had done some things differently. But this I know: Clinton does her homework, and she learns from her mistakes. She is smart, tough, highly knowledgeable and has shown she is genuinely willing to work with Republicans and anyone else to address the countless problems that confront our nation.

Clinton proved her worth in the Senate -- and her willingness to reach out to others. I saw this firsthand as a Republican congressman from New England, and more personally as chairman of the National Security Committee of the Government Oversight Committee.

My committee held one of the first hearings on the illnesses afflicting those who worked tirelessly at the twin towers site to find 9/11 survivors and clean it up. At the time, Republicans were in charge of the White House and Congress, and Clinton, who participated in our House hearing as the Democratic senator from New York, could have taken a very partisan position. Instead she chose to be an important part of the solution, which she definitely was.

As first lady, and more so as senator, being part of the solution was the kind of role she continually fulfilled.

To be completely candid, I have expressed my share of criticism over the years for the very person I intend to vote for. Some of that criticism was deserved, but again, being completely candid, some criticism was expressed more harshly than I wished, or knew was deserved. I have a sense I am not alone in this regard.

When I think of the numerous challenges confronting our nation, I want a president who is knowledgeable, experienced, articulate and tough. I want a president who knows the world and its leaders, the Congress and the White House, and has an innate understanding of the challenges facing everyday Americans.

And I want a president who will attract thoughtful and talented people to work in her administration, and who will continually seek the support of both Democrats and Republicans. By working with all Americans, Clinton will ensure the inspired efforts of our Founding Fathers -- who toiled unceasingly to create a Constitution designed to enable a diverse people, through the art of compromise, to find common ground -- were not in vain.

While no candidate is perfect and while nothing is certain, I am convinced that Hillary Clinton has what it takes to make our government truly work as our Founding Fathers intended. That is why as a Republican she has my strong support, and my vote this November.
​

Now I don't necessarily expect the Republicans who despise Trump's methods and themes to take to Mrs. Clinton as adamantly and with as glowingly complimentary language as has Chris Shays. I don't expect more than a simple statement saying that they can no longer in good conscience support Trump. But when folks make remarks as John McCain did last week and then say, "but I'm still supporting him," they fall a rung or three. That's really a shame for folks like Sen. McCain who, for all else, I heretofore perceived as a man of reasonably decent levels of integrity and as a man of somewhat strong principles. I didn't until recently have to wonder just how strong those principles are in light of Trump's remarks and methods apparently not transcending them. It's hard now to look at Mr. McCain as a man of principle, a man who cares about his country more than about his party's advancement.

They just can't support Trump. He's that horrible.

RNC considers cutting cash to Trump

 

[Wry Catcher]

I can't think of any reason to vote for Clinton, the Democrats, Trump or the Republicans. The only thing the Democrats have been able to put together is but, Trump.

Is your ignorance willful, or have you been dropped on your head too many times?

 

[Wry Catcher]

People like Shays are a minority in the Republican party. Don't believe it? Look at this poll:

Poll: Persistent Partisan Divide Over 'Birther' Question

The majority of Republicans are birthers...

Surely you read the article and it's notes before you used it to support your claims about what the majority and minority of the GOP think/want/believe?

I don't know if that's so or not so. I do know that non-probability surveys won't tell with any reasonable degree of assuredness whether it is or not. (Probability Sampling) From the article: "Respondents for this non-probability survey..."

I can't say why NBC bothered to share the results of that non-probability survey, but they sure did, and you sure did latch onto it. I can say that what the survey result are useful for is entertainment; they cannot be used to credibly support any assertions pertaining to the survey results.

So Trump being nominated is a fluke then? I don't think so. He is who most Republicans want to represent their party.

Correction, "So Trump being nominated is a fluke then? I don't think so. He is who most RepubliKans want to represent their neo fascist party. They are the real RINO's.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

People like Shays are a minority in the Republican party. Don't believe it? Look at this poll:

Poll: Persistent Partisan Divide Over 'Birther' Question

The majority of Republicans are birthers...

Surely you read the article and it's notes before you used it to support your claims about what the majority and minority of the GOP think/want/believe?

I don't know if that's so or not so. I do know that non-probability surveys won't tell with any reasonable degree of assuredness whether it is or not. (Probability Sampling) From the article: "Respondents for this non-probability survey..."

I can't say why NBC bothered to share the results of that non-probability survey, but they sure did, and you sure did latch onto it. I can say that what the survey result are useful for is entertainment; they cannot be used to credibly support any assertions pertaining to the survey results.

So Trump being nominated is a fluke then? I don't think so. He is who most Republicans want to represent their party.

Correction, "So Trump being nominated is a fluke then? I don't think so. He is who most RepubliKans want to represent their neo fascist party. They are the real RINO's.

If you're going to use big words incorrectly, then just don't use them at all.

 

[GaryDog]

Here's the funny of threads like this


Liberals

" Republicans should feel no obligation to vote for Trump simply because he's the parties nomination"

"Sanders supporters are being babies and need to get over it and support Hillary now that she's the nominee"

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent. Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen. Hillary just has policy positions you don't agree with.

Trump is in his own league of incompetence. I don't know why Republicans keep engaging in the disingenuous game of false equivalency of Trump/Hillary. Hezbollah is now repeating Trump's claim that Hillary and Obama planted ISIS, purposefully.

 

[oldsoul]

there are some career politicians who put their own personal power before country.....most if not all politicians have only personal interests in mind or that they are calculatingly dishonest as a matter of routine.

Power is addictive, but I don't know if I can say "all;" certainly it's not all of them who are motivated by personal power. I think many of them are, but more often I think that most of them truly think their policy ideas are truly in the nation's best interest. The bigger and more specific problem is that too few of them are objective enough about the facts, their own views and those of others to discern what policies offer the greatest opportunity for indeed being "the best" choice ("the best" policy) they could make at the time.

There's also the reality that the nature and scope of information that is today available to inform sage policy making is so vast that it's all but impossible for elected leaders to learn it all, apply it all and arrive at what is indeed "the best" choice at the time. That the world isn't as simple as it was some 100+ years ago presents a very real challenge to any individual or group's ability to govern well.

Combine that reality with human nature and, well, here we are. What we need are elected leaders who can separate themselves from the decisions they must make. How does one reliably find folks capable of doing that? Frankly, I don't know. Short of being personally and closely associated with an individual, I don't think it's possible to tell whether s/he is such a person and I'm certain that individuals are able to make themselves seem to be such a person. At the end of the day, one can only judge retroactively and commit to "tossing out" the ones who don't live up to that ideal.

Either I typed that wrong or something happened to the quote. I think I said I don't agree that most if not all have only personal interests in mind. The theory that NO ONE in Washington is fit for the task is a simplistic and inaccurate statement.

Politicians are quite aware that they need to please their constituency but their real "end game" is to push for policies and laws that they believe will improve life for everyone they represent. This is the truth of it. They aren't all monsters.

Name one. Aside from, possibly, Ted Cruz, I can't.

I think you're beginning to believe some of the silliness being spewed by off-news sites and the tireless posters here.

No, what I am believing is what my "eyes" are telling me. Washington is corrupt.

A few quotes from our founders:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson

“When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise the original rights of self defense – to fight the government.” – Alexander Hamilton

“We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years.” – Ben Franklin

Our country, our 'backyard,' still invites us to participate in democracy in a loud and active sense

Not sure that is still true of those who mean to govern today. As founded though, you are correct.

Too many people say the sky is falling. Too many people are believing it. Remember who you are, who we are. We are a good people and we have a form of government that can bend to our will. It is there already, in our own backyard. Don't give up looking for it.

I have not and will not. I, however, realize that the "critical mass" necessary to exact the changes needed, is a long way off. So far off, I fear, I will not live to see it come to fruition, my last great hope is to instill the values and beliefs necessary in my children to continue the fight. Hoping that, one day, they may see this change come to pass.

 

[oldsoul]

Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen

Oh, right, because Hillary isn't right? There is no way she would ever fail to properly safeguard our national security...again.

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent.

It's somehow nuts to say the two positions are hypocritical? Huh? What world do you live in? Really, when did "do as I say, not as I do." become not a hypocritical stance?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Here's the funny of threads like this


Liberals

" Republicans should feel no obligation to vote for Trump simply because he's the parties nomination"

"Sanders supporters are being babies and need to get over it and support Hillary now that she's the nominee"

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent. Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen. Hillary just has policy positions you don't agree with.

Trump is in his own league of incompetence. I don't know why Republicans keep engaging in the disingenuous game of false equivalency of Trump/Hillary. Hezbollah is now repeating Trump's claim that Hillary and Obama planted ISIS, purposefully.

It's an EXACT XXXX equivalency because MANY MANY Sanders supporters simply don't believe Clinton is fit to be President, they were called babies at the convention no less.

 

[GaryDog]

Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen

Oh, right, because Hillary isn't right? There is no way she would ever fail to properly safeguard our national security...again.

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent.

It's somehow nuts to say the two positions are hypocritical? Huh? What world do you live in? Really, when did "do as I say, not as I do." become not a hypocritical stance?

The candidates aren't comparable. Almost everyone with a working frontal cortex believes so. Trump is a diplomatic disaster.

What is this "again" crap? Oh right, it was Hillary's job to make sure Benghazi, Libya was a safe town following a civil war.

How many embassies attacked on Bush's watch? Yeah.

 

[GaryDog]

Here's the funny of threads like this


Liberals

" Republicans should feel no obligation to vote for Trump simply because he's the parties nomination"

"Sanders supporters are being babies and need to get over it and support Hillary now that she's the nominee"

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent. Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen. Hillary just has policy positions you don't agree with.

Trump is in his own league of incompetence. I don't know why Republicans keep engaging in the disingenuous game of false equivalency of Trump/Hillary. Hezbollah is now repeating Trump's claim that Hillary and Obama planted ISIS, purposefully.

It's an EXACT fucking equivalency because MANY MANY Sanders supporters simply don't believe Clinton is fit to be President, they were called babies at the convention no less.

A tiny percentage of Bernie supporters won't fall in line. Meanwhile, half the GOP establishment thinks Trump is a cartoon villain while Democrats look on and laugh hysterically.

Keep thinking they're similar, though. That's half the GOP's problem: Complete and utter denial of reality.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Here's the funny of threads like this


Liberals

" Republicans should feel no obligation to vote for Trump simply because he's the parties nomination"

"Sanders supporters are being babies and need to get over it and support Hillary now that she's the nominee"

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent. Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen. Hillary just has policy positions you don't agree with.

Trump is in his own league of incompetence. I don't know why Republicans keep engaging in the disingenuous game of false equivalency of Trump/Hillary. Hezbollah is now repeating Trump's claim that Hillary and Obama planted ISIS, purposefully.

It's an EXACT fucking equivalency because MANY MANY Sanders supporters simply don't believe Clinton is fit to be President, they were called babies at the convention no less.

A tiny percentage of Bernie supporters won't fall in line. Meanwhile, half the GOP establishment thinks Trump is a cartoon villain while Democrats look on and laugh hysterically.

Keep thinking they're similar, though. That's half the GOP's problem: Complete and utter denial of reality.

See , right here you prove the point. "bernie supporters won't fall in line" Meanwhile you're okay with Republicans not supporting Trump. Gee, I wonder why that is GaryDog.

 

[oldsoul]

Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen

Oh, right, because Hillary isn't right? There is no way she would ever fail to properly safeguard our national security...again.

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent.

It's somehow nuts to say the two positions are hypocritical? Huh? What world do you live in? Really, when did "do as I say, not as I do." become not a hypocritical stance?

The candidates aren't comparable. Almost everyone with a working frontal cortex believes so. Trump is a diplomatic disaster.

What is this "again" crap? Oh right, it was Hillary's job to make sure Benghazi, Libya was a safe town following a civil war.

How many embassies attacked on Bush's watch? Yeah.

The candidates are not comparable? What? Someone, quick tell the Federal Elections Commission. What an absurd assertion.

The "again" I refer to was her personal server while serving as the SOS. But, since you brought it up, yea, Benghazi too. A fact that is grossly under-reported is that nearly all, if not all, "western" nations had pulled out of Benghazi because it was unsafe. So, why didn't we? Also, extra security was requested well before the attack, and denied (whether overtly, or simply by not making a decision). Then there was the repeated calls for assistance that went unanswered, despite the fact that there were assets in place that could have assisted. So, yea Benghazi too.

How many embassies under Bush's watch? Irrelevant, Bush is not running for President as he has already served the maximum of two terms. Since you brought up Bush though, how many ambassadors where assassinated under his watch?

 

[GaryDog]

Here's the funny of threads like this


Liberals

" Republicans should feel no obligation to vote for Trump simply because he's the parties nomination"

"Sanders supporters are being babies and need to get over it and support Hillary now that she's the nominee"

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent. Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen. Hillary just has policy positions you don't agree with.

Trump is in his own league of incompetence. I don't know why Republicans keep engaging in the disingenuous game of false equivalency of Trump/Hillary. Hezbollah is now repeating Trump's claim that Hillary and Obama planted ISIS, purposefully.

It's an EXACT fucking equivalency because MANY MANY Sanders supporters simply don't believe Clinton is fit to be President, they were called babies at the convention no less.

A tiny percentage of Bernie supporters won't fall in line. Meanwhile, half the GOP establishment thinks Trump is a cartoon villain while Democrats look on and laugh hysterically.

Keep thinking they're similar, though. That's half the GOP's problem: Complete and utter denial of reality.

See , right here you prove the point. "bernie supporters won't fall in line" Meanwhile you're okay with Republicans not supporting Trump. Gee, I wonder why that is GaryDog.

I wouldn't want them to fall in line if Hillary was as batshit crazy as Trump. Therein lies the difference. Trump is not the republican equivalent of Hillary. He's in his own class.

 

[GaryDog]

Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen

Oh, right, because Hillary isn't right? There is no way she would ever fail to properly safeguard our national security...again.

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent.

It's somehow nuts to say the two positions are hypocritical? Huh? What world do you live in? Really, when did "do as I say, not as I do." become not a hypocritical stance?

The candidates aren't comparable. Almost everyone with a working frontal cortex believes so. Trump is a diplomatic disaster.

What is this "again" crap? Oh right, it was Hillary's job to make sure Benghazi, Libya was a safe town following a civil war.

How many embassies attacked on Bush's watch? Yeah.

The candidates are not comparable? What? Someone, quick tell the Federal Elections Commission. What an absurd assertion.

The "again" I refer to was her personal server while serving as the SOS. But, since you brought it up, yea, Benghazi too. A fact that is grossly under-reported is that nearly all, if not all, "western" nations had pulled out of Benghazi because it was unsafe. So, why didn't we? Also, extra security was requested well before the attack, and denied (whether overtly, or simply by not making a decision). Then there was the repeated calls for assistance that went unanswered, despite the fact that there were assets in place that could have assisted. So, yea Benghazi too.

How many embassies under Bush's watch? Irrelevant, Bush is not running for President as he has already served the maximum of two terms. Since you brought up Bush though, how many ambassadors where assassinated under his watch?

SoS never denied the security request. Congress denied the funding. Get your facts straight FOR ONCE.

She never put our nat'l security at risk with her emails. Come on.

Ambassador Stevens knew the risks and went into Benghazi ready to die if he had to. Tragically, that's what happened. It had nothing to do with Hillary.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Here's the funny of threads like this


Liberals

" Republicans should feel no obligation to vote for Trump simply because he's the parties nomination"

"Sanders supporters are being babies and need to get over it and support Hillary now that she's the nominee"

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent. Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen. Hillary just has policy positions you don't agree with.

Trump is in his own league of incompetence. I don't know why Republicans keep engaging in the disingenuous game of false equivalency of Trump/Hillary. Hezbollah is now repeating Trump's claim that Hillary and Obama planted ISIS, purposefully.

It's an EXACT fucking equivalency because MANY MANY Sanders supporters simply don't believe Clinton is fit to be President, they were called babies at the convention no less.

A tiny percentage of Bernie supporters won't fall in line. Meanwhile, half the GOP establishment thinks Trump is a cartoon villain while Democrats look on and laugh hysterically.

Keep thinking they're similar, though. That's half the GOP's problem: Complete and utter denial of reality.

See , right here you prove the point. "bernie supporters won't fall in line" Meanwhile you're okay with Republicans not supporting Trump. Gee, I wonder why that is GaryDog.

I wouldn't want them to fall in line if Hillary was as batshit crazy as Trump. Therein lies the difference. Trump is not the republican equivalent of Hillary. He's in his own class.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. You deny reality RE: Hillary Clinton

 

[GaryDog]

They're not equivalent. It's nuts to call them equivalent. Trump is a national security disaster waiting to happen. Hillary just has policy positions you don't agree with.

Trump is in his own league of incompetence. I don't know why Republicans keep engaging in the disingenuous game of false equivalency of Trump/Hillary. Hezbollah is now repeating Trump's claim that Hillary and Obama planted ISIS, purposefully.

It's an EXACT fucking equivalency because MANY MANY Sanders supporters simply don't believe Clinton is fit to be President, they were called babies at the convention no less.

A tiny percentage of Bernie supporters won't fall in line. Meanwhile, half the GOP establishment thinks Trump is a cartoon villain while Democrats look on and laugh hysterically.

Keep thinking they're similar, though. That's half the GOP's problem: Complete and utter denial of reality.

See , right here you prove the point. "bernie supporters won't fall in line" Meanwhile you're okay with Republicans not supporting Trump. Gee, I wonder why that is GaryDog.

I wouldn't want them to fall in line if Hillary was as batshit crazy as Trump. Therein lies the difference. Trump is not the republican equivalent of Hillary. He's in his own class.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. You deny reality RE: Hillary Clinton

LMAO ok.

What's Trump got going today? Oh yeah, direct cash payments from Russia. On the heels of insisting Obama is the founder of ISIS.

You're LITERALLY insane if you think Trump's not the worst candidate in American history.