Trump has the worst negatives of just about any candidate in modern history.

[Cecilie1200]

they've been pretty clear that no one has ever had his negatives since they've been measuring those things.

most of the so-called negatives are creations of the biased media

No, most of the negatives are creations of the media simply letting Trump talk and reporting the results.

if anything media has gone too easy on him because they were afraid he'd take his ball and start a third party.

Maybe. Maybe he's just too much fun and too good for ratings without them needing to massage the story at all.

there is that. but they also set him in the middle of the debate stage and treated him like the presumptive nominee from day one... when all he was ... was a reality show host.

Well, yeah. Again, too much fun and too good for ratings.

 

[Correll]

So, worst case scenario, that you are so afraid of is maybe Grid Lock, like we have had before,

or maybe, just maybe, "economy tanks, government expands, status quo on society".

Without any link between those policies and how that happens.

Deporting Illegals is not going to cause that.

Limiting work visas in not going to cause that.

Trying and failing to renegotiate bad trade deals might. But Trump is playing to his experience in negotiating there, and as President of the United States would have tremendous leverage.

As I said, if the GOP leadership starts seriously addressing the hysterical concerns the corrupt media and lying libs have raised, most people could be reassured that those extreme concerns were made up bullshit.

And thus, be open to voting for Trump or Against Hillary.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? I didn't say "gridlock". I said, "executive order overreach by someone with too much ego to accept that anyone has the right to gridlock him".

I'm not really looking to spend my Sunday writing a dissertation on the nightmare of a Donald Trump presidency, but I can answer specific questions.

Part of the problem with predicting a Trump presidency is that he's extremely "malleable" (to quote Jimmy Carter) and easily manipulated, if you know how to go about it. Therefore, what he's going to do is going to depend a lot on who's pushing what and finds the right triggers to flip. Candidates like Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders have guiding principles they operate by, however much you like or hate them and regardless of their reasons for doing so. Donald Trump has never had a guiding principle in his life other than his own ego and aggrandizement, which means his policy is going to be up for grabs to whomever can flatter him the best.

1) I don't see Donald Trump deporting much of anyone who isn't already getting deported. I DO see him antagonizing the hell out of Mexico and further damaging relations with them. Not that I don't think there are serious problems with the state of those relations now, but they ARE our next-door neighbor and an important trading partner, and degrading communications with them through open hostility is not a plan. And I have serious concerns and suspicions about contradictions between his bombast about "southern walls" - which subject I REALLY doubt he has explored in any depth - and his real-life approach of employing illegals, outsourcing work, and associating with other rich people who do the same.

His remarks have already signaled a dangerous fluidity on the subject of work visas, requiring only for someone to approach him in the right way and with the right incentive to throw it open for the ol' "people who do the work Americans won't" excuse.

2) I have serious doubts about his diplomatic skills in regards to negotiating trade deals. Frankly, his business history tells the story of him getting outside the realm of just collecting rent and residuals, pushing grandiose schemes that flop, and leaving investors and creditors holding the bag and sweeping up the rubble. In the case of the United States government, the people are both the investors and the creditors, and we can't afford that crap. I also don't think that his past history of suckering people into loaning him money is going to be as useful in convincing other countries to agree to trade deal stipulations that favor the US. And I think his perception of what favors the US in trade is seriously limited and flawed.

What I see is him needlessly antagonizing trade partners while achieving nothing useful in negotiating, storming and tantrum-throwing and pouting about how it's all their fault for being "mean" to him, and then touching off a trade war with the people he's just pissed off and motivated into fighting. I see him imposing punitive tariffs on imports and taxes on American companies doing business overseas AND foreign companies investing in the US, and bringing the economy to a grinding halt while the average American ends up paying higher prices while having less ability to get good jobs and increase buying power.

3) I further see American social freedoms being further hemmed in, either by whomever pets his ego the best or by Trump himself because someone ran afoul of him. The lack of time he spends thinking about and grasping complex issues is evident in nearly everything he says, but it's utterly appalling on the myriad subjects that have never really touched on his life, and which therefore bore him. It's too easy to envision him carelessly tossing off something like his "punishing women who have abortions" riff simply because someone put five seconds into thinking about a way to phrase the issue to trick him. It apparently isn't very difficult to do.

You should know that none of these views have been formed by anyone "slandering" him or misrepresenting him. They come from his actual words and actions and personality.

1. What gives you the idea that he is easily swayed?

I think I actually said "easily manipulated". Why do I think that? Let's start with the fact that the guy has had three trophy wives, two models and an actress, the two exes of which took him for big bucks despite prenup agreements. Trophy wifing isn't a casual game, particularly when it comes to negotiating that prenup; it's ALL about finding your sucker and manipulating his ego. You think there aren't scads of beautiful women competing? The winner is usually the best manipulator. (And no, Tiny Hands, they don't want you because you're such a stud.)

Then let's move on to his shameless pandering to whomever he's addressing at the moment. You can say, "Oh, that's just politicking", but successful politicians with ideological principles don't flip-flop to get the audience du jour to like them. They find different ways to tailor and deliver the same message. Donald Trump can be persuaded to say and do what people want because his ego can't stand the idea of someone not venerating him, or worse, disagreeing with him or criticizing him.

Let's also consider his utter lack of anything like a set of guiding principles to lend his policies structural coherence, and his abysmal ignorance about most subjects. It doesn't take hurricane-force winds to blow a ship around if that ship has no rudder or anchor. Do you really think it's that difficult to persuade someone on a subject about which they know little or nothing, and can't be bothered to learn? Politics is full of people whose primary job skill is persuasiveness. Donald Trump gets routinely mousetrapped into taking conflicting positions - sometimes in the same conversation - by journalists, for God's sake.

Finally, look at the flip side of Trump's egotistical inability to ever be criticized or challenged on anything without going ballistic: his constant of equating "good person" with "he likes me". Any time another person's name is brought up to Donald Trump, he does one of two things. He either begins to personally denigrate them because they aren't supporters of his, or he reacts with, "Oh, yeah, he's a great guy. We're friends. He loves me. Great guy." This is a man whose massive, fragile conceit has made him vulnerable to flattery and manipulation.

2. Mexico has a policy that violates our Sovereignty constantly on a massive scale, ie encouraging illegal immigration. Any relationship with Mexico based on reality should be worse unless they immediately starting working in good faith to help US resolve this.

I don't deny that Mexico is a problem, or that the response to it should be based in reality. On the contrary, it's one of the reasons I refuse to support Trump. A realistic policy responding to Mexico's behavior is NOT to march in and try to beat them to death with your swinging cod, or to suffocate them with the sheer weight of your testosterone-soaked ego. Trump has already antagonized Mexico and made them defensive and hostile in any dealings with them, particularly if those dealings involve Donald Trump. However much you might think they deserve it, that still doesn't make it smart or productive in the long run.

3. We have a 450 trillion dollar a year trade deficit. He will be the first President in a long time that will be thinking of Trade in the context of advancing American interests. He will have tremendous leverage as the leader of the world's largest market. Considering the horrific policy we have now, the bar to do better or at least not worse, is just about as low as it can be.

I can't imagine what makes you think Donald Trump knows much of anything about international trade, and every time I hear about "trade deficit", I wonder the same thing about the person saying it.

Walter Williams addressed this in a very clear manner in a recent column:

A trade deficit is when people in one country buy more from another country than the other country’s people buy from them. There cannot be a trade deficit in a true economic sense. Let’s examine this.

I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me. That means I have a trade deficit with my grocer. My grocer buys more from his wholesaler than his wholesaler buys from him. But there is really no trade imbalance, whether my grocer is down the street, in Canada or, God forbid, in China.

Here is what happens: When I purchase $100 worth of groceries, my goods account (groceries) rises, but my capital account (money) falls by $100. For my grocer, it is the opposite. His goods account falls by $100, but his capital account rises by $100. Looking at only the goods account, we would see trade deficits, but if we included the capital accounts, we would see a trade balance. That is true whether we are talking about domestic trade or we are talking about foreign trade.

The uninformed buys into the mercantilist creed that trade deficits are bad and trade surpluses are good.

He goes on to note that the 1930s had trade surpluses every year except 1936. Clearly, trade surpluses do not equal prosperity.

International trade operates under the same general principles as domestic trade. When we, as consumers, purchase goods from China and the Chinese do not spend a like amount for goods from us, there is a current account deficit. In 2015, Americans purchased $482 billion worth of goods from China. The Chinese purchased only $116 billion worth of goods from us, producing a current account deficit with China of $366 billion.

Instead of purchasing tangible goods, the Chinese purchase capital goods — such as corporate stocks, bonds and U.S. Treasury debt instruments. The Chinese purchase more capital goods from us than we purchase of the same from them. That means the deficit on our current account is matched by the surplus on our capital account.

This issue is also explored in this paper from the Cato Institute:

Are Trade Deficits Really Bad News?

Do I think Donald Trump knows the full story on trade deficits and trade balances? I have no idea. But to listen to his rhetoric, he either doesn't have a clue about international trade, or he's cynically lying his ass off to manipulate supporters who don't have a clue.

4. Note how quickly he reversed himself on "punishing women" when he was more fully informed on the subject. He is obviously open to constructive criticism and new information.

The question to ask is, why does he NEED to be "constructively criticized" on so many things? Why is he wandering around, shooting his mouth off about issues on which he hasn't spent five minutes thought, or bothered to have anyone else explain to him? Has someone been keeping it a secret from him that these issues come up in Presidential campaigns, not to mention the actual job? That he's going to be asked about them, and might want to have something to say? Do you see Ted Cruz having to walk back some half-assed "Oh, gee, I never thought about it before" comment every week, or more often sometimes? No, you don't, because Ted Cruz came to the test after studying and preparing, not just planning to wing it with his "good brain".

The time to become informed on the subject of abortion, or any current political issue, is BEFORE you campaign to be President, not on the fly.

If the GOP would, instead of validating the attempt to paint Trump and much of the GOP base as bigots and hicks, and challenge the idea that Trump is the worst thing that ever happened, we can turn this panic off and reverse the trend of those numbers quickly.

WHY should the GOP not validate the "attempt to paint Trump as a bigot and hick"? He IS. He's ignorant white trash with money, and HE'S the one painting himself that way. You can't blame other people for simply noticing and commenting on it.

The GOP doesn't owe you OR Trump any effort to try to paper over his foolish capering and misbehavior, nor is there a single reason under the sun for them to want to "turn the panic off" or reverse his trends. He's doing it to himself, and in the process giving everyone who isn't a Trumpette no reason whatsoever to save him, and loads of reasons not to.

1.a.Your assumption that his marriages failed because he was out "swayed" by women targeting him instead of his own motivations is unsupported.

I didn't say his marriages failed because he was manipulated. I said he got married because they manipulated him. And they got some pretty favorable prenup deals the same way.

1b A politician "pandering" for votes is not being manipulated, but trying to manipulate others.

Like I said, successful politicians don't pander the way Trump does. They keep their message, and tailor it to their audience. Trump, on the other hand, changes his message outright to gain approval.

1c Trump does NOT get routinely mousetrapped by journalists. He normally manipulates them like a master. His flubbing the question on Abortion was an exception, not the rule.

Acting outrageous to gain media attention is not "master manipulation". Any half-assed protester, criminal, or terrorist can figure that one out. May I submit for your edification Occupy Wallstreet, Black Lives Matter, the Unabomber, any gangbanger doing a drive-by in LA on any given day?

Truth is, the media gets him to make a fool of himself on a routine basis. He just doesn't always care.

1d HIs pubic appearance of "going ballistic" is part of his public persona, that recent events show are NOT part of his behind the scene work behavior. He accepted criticism of his flubbing the abortion question and responded appropriately. I also started an interesting thread from Salon, with an interview with Newt Gingrich who met with Trump, with reports that support that.

Even if you were correct, which I highly doubt, is it supposed to be a comfort to me that a man who wants to be President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, regularly behaves like a tantrum-throwing buffoon on purpose because he thinks it looks good?

I'm also not all that reassured by Newt Gingrich, of all people, on appropriate behavior for a political candidate.

And this still doesn't address the issues of 1) "the abortion question" is far from the only thing he's ever said that was egregious, and 2) WHY does he need to be "constructively criticized" so damned often, whether he accepts it or not? Why does he not already know and prepare for the issues he's going to get questioned about? Why are they a surprise to him and his campaign staff?

2. Any dealing with Mexico with American interests in mind, is going to make Mexico antagonistic, hostile and defensive, for they have a policy of advancing their interests at the expense of ours. And they know it, even if most of US do not. Trump is the MOST credible candidate when it comes to reversing that. All the other candidates have a record of being on the wrong side of that issue.

No, that's not true. All countries have a policy of advancing their own interests, but it's not necessarily true that it's at the expense of the interests of others', unless it has to be, or that they are automatically hostile and defensive simply because we advance our own interests. This isn't a schoolyard, and we're not talking about children here.

Trump is not even remotely credible on the subject, unless one does not, in fact, know much of anything about international diplomacy in general, or Mexican-American relations in specific. He just spouts nationalist, jingoistic pap that sounds macho, and a bunch of angry bohunks lap it up because it resonates with memories of their last bar fight.

And yes, I do sound condescending and dismissive, but no more so than Donald Trump does, and the difference is that I'M not running for President.

3. The problem with that scenario, is that there are TWO grocers, one American and one Chinese. And the Chinese one is playing hard ball, and the American one is losing his house.

The long term effects of Free Trade are NOT what we were promised. That policy needs reversed.

Well, thank you for that deep, insightful analysis of trade deficits and the specific issues therein. I am staggered by your brilliance and the sheer weight of facts and information that you've dropped on me.

If this sort of derivative sloganeering is what I'm going to get in return for my attempts to address your questions thoughtfully and specifically, the way you requested, then say so now, and I'll go back to talking about Donny Boy's $5 spray tan and roadkill comb-over. I don't HAVE to spend time and effort composing long explanatory posts for you. I'm doing it as a courtesy because you asked me to, and I expect the same in return.

4. Yes, I do see candidates doing that. Ted Cruz walked back quite a few of his policy positions when Trump hit the scene and made Immigration and Trade the top issues. And that wasn't a flubbed answer that he walked back. Those were long standing policy beliefs.

Name them, and cite your sources.

5. Trump is not a bigot or a Hick. There is nothing racist about his policies. And by embracing the slander the Media is directing at Trump and his large base among the Republican Base, the leadership is doing long term damage to the party.

Trump is not a bigot in the sense that David Duke is, but I'm pretty sure that's mostly because he doesn't really think of other people as real to a great enough extent to hate them. He seems to just generally view the rest of the world with a vague contempt because they're not him. His statements are, however, quite offensive and even over the line into bigoted.

And as a life long Republican, who voted for moderates when they won primaries fair and square, they do own me. They owe me the same consideration that I gave them as part of our team.

No, the Republican Party doesn't owe you, personally, a damned thing when you're weighed against all the OTHER people who also voted for their candidates previously. That's the part you keep forgetting because you've listened to Trump for so long that his egocentrism has rubbed off on you: YOU are not that important, individually. You're just one face in a crowd of millions, and the GOP has to balance the desires of ALL its voters and potential voters, not just you.

And they don't owe it to Donald Trump to piss on him if he was on fire, if it required them to walk all the way across the street to do it.

1. Fine. Your assumption that he married those women because he was manipulated and not because he wanted to is unsupported.

2. If he is still committed to deporting the illegals, trying to reverse the ever rising Trade Deficit and NOT screwing around with Putin, then he is still on the message I care about. This still seems to be a complaint about campaigning style and hardly a reason for the panic we see.

3. It is a lot more than that. Here is an article about a Washington Post review of his communication skill.

It’s not chaos. It’s Trump’s campaign strategy.

This part is my favorite.

"The Post’s analysis found several qualities to Trump’s approach. First is a pattern of experimentation that suggests that he is testing his insults and attacks as he goes along. Like a team of corporate marketers, Trump understands the value of message-testing — but he appears to do it spontaneously, behind the lectern and on live television."

Trump is operating on a level most people can't even see. He is so good at his calculated delivery that he makes it look spontaneous.

4. Yes. A calculated method of intimidation can be a valuable tool when dealing with hostile parties, while an actual bad temper, like Hillary supposedly has, has nothing positive to bring to the table.

5. My point was specific to Mexico, which has a policy of advancing it's interest at the expense of ours, so in ANY attempt to seriously address that is going to make Mexico hostile and defensive.

Trump is the most credible on this issue, because ALL the other candidates have a record of being on the wrong side of this issue.

6. YOur mistake was assuming that I do not know the Theory of Free Trade. I know it well, I have been a Free Trader most of my life.

But the reality is that in practice we are not getting the results we expected. Displaced workers are NOT retraining and moving to the new better jobs created by economic growth.

A plant closes. Not everyone has the capacity to train for a newer more skilled job that can replace that pay.

Many do. They investigate what careers will be hot when they graduate in 4 years.

SOme of them fail and now are underemployed and with student debt.

Some pass and find that the jobs they thought they were going to get have moved to China.

Some pass and find that the company has decided to save money with H1B workers.

Some pass and apply for the job and find out that 73 people applied for that job.

YOu go into the smaller cities and towns and rural areas of the Rust Belt, and there are vast swaths that are dead. Towns with no hope, and no opportunities.

7. Here is one on Ted Cruz.

Did Cruz Support Legalization?

"And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows,"

That was 2013.

Now he is against that. Fact check explains his story on this. YOu may or may not believe him.

Would you like another one?


8. So you agree he is not bigoted. You just find his statements offensive and some of them over the line.

That hardly supports the level of panic we see in response to Trump.

9. I was using myself as an example of a Trump supporter. There are millions of us. WE are important as a group. We have been part of every Republican Victory in the past and if we were to win the Nomination fair and square they would owe us, as fellow team members, to support the Candidate like we have in the past.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll cannot prove that Trump was not manipulated into marriage by women as the evidence suggests.

Correll has given us no reason to believe that Trump really will deport illegals.

Correll has not shown how Trump can reverse the Trade Deficit.

Correll says he is has been a Free Trader all of his life, without any evidence or support.

Correll is foolish to believe that Trump can handle Putin.

The article is wrong that Trump “is testing his insults and attacks.” In fact he is floundering. Instead of message testing, he can’t grasp either the media or the message.

Trump’s campaign strategy has been expedient and eclectic, and now the opponents are able to handle it without difficulty.

Trump’s bad temper and his attempt to intimidate startles the listener who then reacts with ridicule.

Correll gives Trump a chance on his changing his mind but won’t give it to Cruz.

Correll says Trump deserves a fair and square chance. My reaction is that the far right reactionaries deserve nothing but a boot rhetorically in the seat of the pants.

 

[Correll]

Correll cannot prove that Trump was not manipulated into marriage by women as the evidence suggests.

Cecil is the one that brought it up as evidence against Trump. It is on him to prove it.

Correll has given us no reason to believe that Trump really will deport illegals.

Trump could be lying. But at least he does not have a documented record of trying to give the illegals amnesty. IMO, that makes him the most credible.

Correll has not shown how Trump can reverse the Trade Deficit.

I'm not sure HOW he plans to do it. I just note the he is the only Republican pledged to try. The rest are still mired in the ideology of Free Trade.

Correll says he is has been a Free Trader all of his life, without any evidence or support.

??? Wow. That's an incredibly minor point. What "Evidence" of my personal opinion would you expect to see? Magic Brain scans?

Correll is foolish to believe that Trump can handle Putin.

Trump is the only republican who has adjusted to the Cold War being over and who doesn't WANT to "handle" PUtin. That's a big plus in my book.

The article is wrong that Trump “is testing his insults and attacks.” In fact he is floundering. Instead of message testing, he can’t grasp either the media or the message.

He is being buried under a massive propaganda campaign. Far greater men have been destroyed by far less. This in not about what flaws he has, but how completely corrupt the media and the Political Class is.

Trump’s campaign strategy has been expedient and eclectic, and now the opponents are able to handle it without difficulty.

He has crushed all his opponents in the Primaries. The Leadership is desperately trying, not to defeat him, but to get a brokered convention so they can get the decision AWAY from the voters.

Trump’s bad temper and his attempt to intimidate startles the listener who then reacts with ridicule.

Moronic nonsense.

Correll gives Trump a chance on his changing his mind but won’t give it to Cruz.

Cecil asked for an example of another candidate walking it back. I gave one.

Correll says Trump deserves a fair and square chance. My reaction is that the far right reactionaries deserve nothing but a boot rhetorically in the seat of the pants.

If one faction of a group is treated like shit, that faction will not stay for long.

We respected the process when McCain won. Now you moderates owe us the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Correll demonstrates why we should not vote for him, and he did it respectfully until the end.

Correll, we are never going to allow the far right to make a decision to badly hurt the GOP.

If Trump is the candidate, the GOP mainstream and establishment will make sure he loses the national election.

 

[Redfish]

And Correll demonstrates why we should not for vote, and he did it respectfully until the end.

Correll, we are never going to allow the far right to make a decision to badly hurt the GOP.

If Trump is the candidate, the GOP mainstream and establishment will make sure the loses the national election.

you are such a fricken liar. your whole reason for being on this forum is to hurt the GOP. You are nothing but a dem/lib talking point repeating machine.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My whole reason from day one (go back and read) is to support the purge of the far right from the GOP.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You didn't read my post at all, did you? I didn't say "gridlock". I said, "executive order overreach by someone with too much ego to accept that anyone has the right to gridlock him".

I'm not really looking to spend my Sunday writing a dissertation on the nightmare of a Donald Trump presidency, but I can answer specific questions.

Part of the problem with predicting a Trump presidency is that he's extremely "malleable" (to quote Jimmy Carter) and easily manipulated, if you know how to go about it. Therefore, what he's going to do is going to depend a lot on who's pushing what and finds the right triggers to flip. Candidates like Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders have guiding principles they operate by, however much you like or hate them and regardless of their reasons for doing so. Donald Trump has never had a guiding principle in his life other than his own ego and aggrandizement, which means his policy is going to be up for grabs to whomever can flatter him the best.

1) I don't see Donald Trump deporting much of anyone who isn't already getting deported. I DO see him antagonizing the hell out of Mexico and further damaging relations with them. Not that I don't think there are serious problems with the state of those relations now, but they ARE our next-door neighbor and an important trading partner, and degrading communications with them through open hostility is not a plan. And I have serious concerns and suspicions about contradictions between his bombast about "southern walls" - which subject I REALLY doubt he has explored in any depth - and his real-life approach of employing illegals, outsourcing work, and associating with other rich people who do the same.

His remarks have already signaled a dangerous fluidity on the subject of work visas, requiring only for someone to approach him in the right way and with the right incentive to throw it open for the ol' "people who do the work Americans won't" excuse.

2) I have serious doubts about his diplomatic skills in regards to negotiating trade deals. Frankly, his business history tells the story of him getting outside the realm of just collecting rent and residuals, pushing grandiose schemes that flop, and leaving investors and creditors holding the bag and sweeping up the rubble. In the case of the United States government, the people are both the investors and the creditors, and we can't afford that crap. I also don't think that his past history of suckering people into loaning him money is going to be as useful in convincing other countries to agree to trade deal stipulations that favor the US. And I think his perception of what favors the US in trade is seriously limited and flawed.

What I see is him needlessly antagonizing trade partners while achieving nothing useful in negotiating, storming and tantrum-throwing and pouting about how it's all their fault for being "mean" to him, and then touching off a trade war with the people he's just pissed off and motivated into fighting. I see him imposing punitive tariffs on imports and taxes on American companies doing business overseas AND foreign companies investing in the US, and bringing the economy to a grinding halt while the average American ends up paying higher prices while having less ability to get good jobs and increase buying power.

3) I further see American social freedoms being further hemmed in, either by whomever pets his ego the best or by Trump himself because someone ran afoul of him. The lack of time he spends thinking about and grasping complex issues is evident in nearly everything he says, but it's utterly appalling on the myriad subjects that have never really touched on his life, and which therefore bore him. It's too easy to envision him carelessly tossing off something like his "punishing women who have abortions" riff simply because someone put five seconds into thinking about a way to phrase the issue to trick him. It apparently isn't very difficult to do.

You should know that none of these views have been formed by anyone "slandering" him or misrepresenting him. They come from his actual words and actions and personality.

1. What gives you the idea that he is easily swayed?

I think I actually said "easily manipulated". Why do I think that? Let's start with the fact that the guy has had three trophy wives, two models and an actress, the two exes of which took him for big bucks despite prenup agreements. Trophy wifing isn't a casual game, particularly when it comes to negotiating that prenup; it's ALL about finding your sucker and manipulating his ego. You think there aren't scads of beautiful women competing? The winner is usually the best manipulator. (And no, Tiny Hands, they don't want you because you're such a stud.)

Then let's move on to his shameless pandering to whomever he's addressing at the moment. You can say, "Oh, that's just politicking", but successful politicians with ideological principles don't flip-flop to get the audience du jour to like them. They find different ways to tailor and deliver the same message. Donald Trump can be persuaded to say and do what people want because his ego can't stand the idea of someone not venerating him, or worse, disagreeing with him or criticizing him.

Let's also consider his utter lack of anything like a set of guiding principles to lend his policies structural coherence, and his abysmal ignorance about most subjects. It doesn't take hurricane-force winds to blow a ship around if that ship has no rudder or anchor. Do you really think it's that difficult to persuade someone on a subject about which they know little or nothing, and can't be bothered to learn? Politics is full of people whose primary job skill is persuasiveness. Donald Trump gets routinely mousetrapped into taking conflicting positions - sometimes in the same conversation - by journalists, for God's sake.

Finally, look at the flip side of Trump's egotistical inability to ever be criticized or challenged on anything without going ballistic: his constant of equating "good person" with "he likes me". Any time another person's name is brought up to Donald Trump, he does one of two things. He either begins to personally denigrate them because they aren't supporters of his, or he reacts with, "Oh, yeah, he's a great guy. We're friends. He loves me. Great guy." This is a man whose massive, fragile conceit has made him vulnerable to flattery and manipulation.

2. Mexico has a policy that violates our Sovereignty constantly on a massive scale, ie encouraging illegal immigration. Any relationship with Mexico based on reality should be worse unless they immediately starting working in good faith to help US resolve this.

I don't deny that Mexico is a problem, or that the response to it should be based in reality. On the contrary, it's one of the reasons I refuse to support Trump. A realistic policy responding to Mexico's behavior is NOT to march in and try to beat them to death with your swinging cod, or to suffocate them with the sheer weight of your testosterone-soaked ego. Trump has already antagonized Mexico and made them defensive and hostile in any dealings with them, particularly if those dealings involve Donald Trump. However much you might think they deserve it, that still doesn't make it smart or productive in the long run.

3. We have a 450 trillion dollar a year trade deficit. He will be the first President in a long time that will be thinking of Trade in the context of advancing American interests. He will have tremendous leverage as the leader of the world's largest market. Considering the horrific policy we have now, the bar to do better or at least not worse, is just about as low as it can be.

I can't imagine what makes you think Donald Trump knows much of anything about international trade, and every time I hear about "trade deficit", I wonder the same thing about the person saying it.

Walter Williams addressed this in a very clear manner in a recent column:

A trade deficit is when people in one country buy more from another country than the other country’s people buy from them. There cannot be a trade deficit in a true economic sense. Let’s examine this.

I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me. That means I have a trade deficit with my grocer. My grocer buys more from his wholesaler than his wholesaler buys from him. But there is really no trade imbalance, whether my grocer is down the street, in Canada or, God forbid, in China.

Here is what happens: When I purchase $100 worth of groceries, my goods account (groceries) rises, but my capital account (money) falls by $100. For my grocer, it is the opposite. His goods account falls by $100, but his capital account rises by $100. Looking at only the goods account, we would see trade deficits, but if we included the capital accounts, we would see a trade balance. That is true whether we are talking about domestic trade or we are talking about foreign trade.

The uninformed buys into the mercantilist creed that trade deficits are bad and trade surpluses are good.

He goes on to note that the 1930s had trade surpluses every year except 1936. Clearly, trade surpluses do not equal prosperity.

International trade operates under the same general principles as domestic trade. When we, as consumers, purchase goods from China and the Chinese do not spend a like amount for goods from us, there is a current account deficit. In 2015, Americans purchased $482 billion worth of goods from China. The Chinese purchased only $116 billion worth of goods from us, producing a current account deficit with China of $366 billion.

Instead of purchasing tangible goods, the Chinese purchase capital goods — such as corporate stocks, bonds and U.S. Treasury debt instruments. The Chinese purchase more capital goods from us than we purchase of the same from them. That means the deficit on our current account is matched by the surplus on our capital account.

This issue is also explored in this paper from the Cato Institute:

Are Trade Deficits Really Bad News?

Do I think Donald Trump knows the full story on trade deficits and trade balances? I have no idea. But to listen to his rhetoric, he either doesn't have a clue about international trade, or he's cynically lying his ass off to manipulate supporters who don't have a clue.

4. Note how quickly he reversed himself on "punishing women" when he was more fully informed on the subject. He is obviously open to constructive criticism and new information.

The question to ask is, why does he NEED to be "constructively criticized" on so many things? Why is he wandering around, shooting his mouth off about issues on which he hasn't spent five minutes thought, or bothered to have anyone else explain to him? Has someone been keeping it a secret from him that these issues come up in Presidential campaigns, not to mention the actual job? That he's going to be asked about them, and might want to have something to say? Do you see Ted Cruz having to walk back some half-assed "Oh, gee, I never thought about it before" comment every week, or more often sometimes? No, you don't, because Ted Cruz came to the test after studying and preparing, not just planning to wing it with his "good brain".

The time to become informed on the subject of abortion, or any current political issue, is BEFORE you campaign to be President, not on the fly.

If the GOP would, instead of validating the attempt to paint Trump and much of the GOP base as bigots and hicks, and challenge the idea that Trump is the worst thing that ever happened, we can turn this panic off and reverse the trend of those numbers quickly.

WHY should the GOP not validate the "attempt to paint Trump as a bigot and hick"? He IS. He's ignorant white trash with money, and HE'S the one painting himself that way. You can't blame other people for simply noticing and commenting on it.

The GOP doesn't owe you OR Trump any effort to try to paper over his foolish capering and misbehavior, nor is there a single reason under the sun for them to want to "turn the panic off" or reverse his trends. He's doing it to himself, and in the process giving everyone who isn't a Trumpette no reason whatsoever to save him, and loads of reasons not to.

1.a.Your assumption that his marriages failed because he was out "swayed" by women targeting him instead of his own motivations is unsupported.

I didn't say his marriages failed because he was manipulated. I said he got married because they manipulated him. And they got some pretty favorable prenup deals the same way.

1b A politician "pandering" for votes is not being manipulated, but trying to manipulate others.

Like I said, successful politicians don't pander the way Trump does. They keep their message, and tailor it to their audience. Trump, on the other hand, changes his message outright to gain approval.

1c Trump does NOT get routinely mousetrapped by journalists. He normally manipulates them like a master. His flubbing the question on Abortion was an exception, not the rule.

Acting outrageous to gain media attention is not "master manipulation". Any half-assed protester, criminal, or terrorist can figure that one out. May I submit for your edification Occupy Wallstreet, Black Lives Matter, the Unabomber, any gangbanger doing a drive-by in LA on any given day?

Truth is, the media gets him to make a fool of himself on a routine basis. He just doesn't always care.

1d HIs pubic appearance of "going ballistic" is part of his public persona, that recent events show are NOT part of his behind the scene work behavior. He accepted criticism of his flubbing the abortion question and responded appropriately. I also started an interesting thread from Salon, with an interview with Newt Gingrich who met with Trump, with reports that support that.

Even if you were correct, which I highly doubt, is it supposed to be a comfort to me that a man who wants to be President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, regularly behaves like a tantrum-throwing buffoon on purpose because he thinks it looks good?

I'm also not all that reassured by Newt Gingrich, of all people, on appropriate behavior for a political candidate.

And this still doesn't address the issues of 1) "the abortion question" is far from the only thing he's ever said that was egregious, and 2) WHY does he need to be "constructively criticized" so damned often, whether he accepts it or not? Why does he not already know and prepare for the issues he's going to get questioned about? Why are they a surprise to him and his campaign staff?

2. Any dealing with Mexico with American interests in mind, is going to make Mexico antagonistic, hostile and defensive, for they have a policy of advancing their interests at the expense of ours. And they know it, even if most of US do not. Trump is the MOST credible candidate when it comes to reversing that. All the other candidates have a record of being on the wrong side of that issue.

No, that's not true. All countries have a policy of advancing their own interests, but it's not necessarily true that it's at the expense of the interests of others', unless it has to be, or that they are automatically hostile and defensive simply because we advance our own interests. This isn't a schoolyard, and we're not talking about children here.

Trump is not even remotely credible on the subject, unless one does not, in fact, know much of anything about international diplomacy in general, or Mexican-American relations in specific. He just spouts nationalist, jingoistic pap that sounds macho, and a bunch of angry bohunks lap it up because it resonates with memories of their last bar fight.

And yes, I do sound condescending and dismissive, but no more so than Donald Trump does, and the difference is that I'M not running for President.

3. The problem with that scenario, is that there are TWO grocers, one American and one Chinese. And the Chinese one is playing hard ball, and the American one is losing his house.

The long term effects of Free Trade are NOT what we were promised. That policy needs reversed.

Well, thank you for that deep, insightful analysis of trade deficits and the specific issues therein. I am staggered by your brilliance and the sheer weight of facts and information that you've dropped on me.

If this sort of derivative sloganeering is what I'm going to get in return for my attempts to address your questions thoughtfully and specifically, the way you requested, then say so now, and I'll go back to talking about Donny Boy's $5 spray tan and roadkill comb-over. I don't HAVE to spend time and effort composing long explanatory posts for you. I'm doing it as a courtesy because you asked me to, and I expect the same in return.

4. Yes, I do see candidates doing that. Ted Cruz walked back quite a few of his policy positions when Trump hit the scene and made Immigration and Trade the top issues. And that wasn't a flubbed answer that he walked back. Those were long standing policy beliefs.

Name them, and cite your sources.

5. Trump is not a bigot or a Hick. There is nothing racist about his policies. And by embracing the slander the Media is directing at Trump and his large base among the Republican Base, the leadership is doing long term damage to the party.

Trump is not a bigot in the sense that David Duke is, but I'm pretty sure that's mostly because he doesn't really think of other people as real to a great enough extent to hate them. He seems to just generally view the rest of the world with a vague contempt because they're not him. His statements are, however, quite offensive and even over the line into bigoted.

And as a life long Republican, who voted for moderates when they won primaries fair and square, they do own me. They owe me the same consideration that I gave them as part of our team.

No, the Republican Party doesn't owe you, personally, a damned thing when you're weighed against all the OTHER people who also voted for their candidates previously. That's the part you keep forgetting because you've listened to Trump for so long that his egocentrism has rubbed off on you: YOU are not that important, individually. You're just one face in a crowd of millions, and the GOP has to balance the desires of ALL its voters and potential voters, not just you.

And they don't owe it to Donald Trump to piss on him if he was on fire, if it required them to walk all the way across the street to do it.

1. Fine. Your assumption that he married those women because he was manipulated and not because he wanted to is unsupported.

Who said he didn't want to? Whole point of manipulation is to convince someone they want to do something.

2. If he is still committed to deporting the illegals, trying to reverse the ever rising Trade Deficit and NOT screwing around with Putin, then he is still on the message I care about. This still seems to be a complaint about campaigning style and hardly a reason for the panic we see.

Wrong. It's a complaint about the disconnect between what he SAYS and what he's likely to DO, or likely to be capable of doing. That's a very good reason for panic, or would be if I thought for a second this bumbling narcissist was likely to win, but the longer he goes on, the less I think so.

3. It is a lot more than that. Here is an article about a Washington Post review of his communication skill.

It’s not chaos. It’s Trump’s campaign strategy.

This part is my favorite.

"The Post’s analysis found several qualities to Trump’s approach. First is a pattern of experimentation that suggests that he is testing his insults and attacks as he goes along. Like a team of corporate marketers, Trump understands the value of message-testing — but he appears to do it spontaneously, behind the lectern and on live television."

Trump is operating on a level most people can't even see. He is so good at his calculated delivery that he makes it look spontaneous.

Yes, I'm sure that alienating huge segments of the voting population and generating unfavorability ratings you rarely see in a politician LEAVING office, let alone one running for office, is all part of his brilliant master plan. As, I'm sure, is putting together a campaign that more closely resembles the Three Stooges than a knowledgeable, competent political staff and steps on its johnson with monotonous regularity.

4. Yes. A calculated method of intimidation can be a valuable tool when dealing with hostile parties, while an actual bad temper, like Hillary supposedly has, has nothing positive to bring to the table.

Lovely rationalization. "We hate the RNC for bullying us, so we get to bully everyone else instead!"

5. My point was specific to Mexico, which has a policy of advancing it's interest at the expense of ours, so in ANY attempt to seriously address that is going to make Mexico hostile and defensive.

Trump is the most credible on this issue, because ALL the other candidates have a record of being on the wrong side of this issue.

Of course the other candidates have less-perfect records on the issue, because THEY actually HAVE records. Trump has never done anything but run his gums, which means you can project any assumptions you like onto him.

That, of course, is referring to legislative and voting records. Trump does have a record on the subject of immigration, both legal and illegal, and it's somewhat less "pure" than his rhetoric.

And no, there's no reason why dealing with Mexico on this subject has to make them hostile, antagonized, and defensive. It will make them resistant, I don't doubt, but that's not the same thing.

6. YOur mistake was assuming that I do not know the Theory of Free Trade. I know it well, I have been a Free Trader most of my life.

But the reality is that in practice we are not getting the results we expected. Displaced workers are NOT retraining and moving to the new better jobs created by economic growth.

A plant closes. Not everyone has the capacity to train for a newer more skilled job that can replace that pay.

Many do. They investigate what careers will be hot when they graduate in 4 years.

SOme of them fail and now are underemployed and with student debt.

Some pass and find that the jobs they thought they were going to get have moved to China.

Some pass and find that the company has decided to save money with H1B workers.

Some pass and apply for the job and find out that 73 people applied for that job.

YOu go into the smaller cities and towns and rural areas of the Rust Belt, and there are vast swaths that are dead. Towns with no hope, and no opportunities.

It's hard NOT to assume you know very little about trade, when you say manifestly silly things about it and flatly refuse to contribute anything more than blurbs and slogans on the subject. My mistake was in assuming that you would be courteous enough to return the same thought and detail that you demanded from me.

So I think after I finish this response, that will be the end of dignifying this as some sort of serious, in-depth discussion, and we'll go back to discussing how Donald Trump is a no-class blowhard who looks like a circus clown.

7. Here is one on Ted Cruz.

Did Cruz Support Legalization?

"And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows,"

That was 2013.

Now he is against that. Fact check explains his story on this. YOu may or may not believe him.

Would you like another one?

Feel free to continue posting all the slogans and memes you like, since it's clear that you're not going to do otherwise, no matter how much you demand it from others. Just don't expect me to treat it, or you, as deserving of respect any further. Basically, this is just cult of personality voting, and as I said, my mistake was in taking you at your word that you wanted to have a serious discussion. Carry on with your Big Gulp of Trump Koolaid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Correll cannot prove that Trump was not manipulated into marriage by women as the evidence suggests.

Cecil is the one that brought it up as evidence against Trump. It is on him to prove it.

Correll has given us no reason to believe that Trump really will deport illegals.

Trump could be lying. But at least he does not have a documented record of trying to give the illegals amnesty. IMO, that makes him the most credible.

Correll has not shown how Trump can reverse the Trade Deficit.

I'm not sure HOW he plans to do it. I just note the he is the only Republican pledged to try. The rest are still mired in the ideology of Free Trade.

Correll says he is has been a Free Trader all of his life, without any evidence or support.

??? Wow. That's an incredibly minor point. What "Evidence" of my personal opinion would you expect to see? Magic Brain scans?

Correll is foolish to believe that Trump can handle Putin.

Trump is the only republican who has adjusted to the Cold War being over and who doesn't WANT to "handle" PUtin. That's a big plus in my book.

The article is wrong that Trump “is testing his insults and attacks.” In fact he is floundering. Instead of message testing, he can’t grasp either the media or the message.

He is being buried under a massive propaganda campaign. Far greater men have been destroyed by far less. This in not about what flaws he has, but how completely corrupt the media and the Political Class is.

Trump’s campaign strategy has been expedient and eclectic, and now the opponents are able to handle it without difficulty.

He has crushed all his opponents in the Primaries. The Leadership is desperately trying, not to defeat him, but to get a brokered convention so they can get the decision AWAY from the voters.

Trump’s bad temper and his attempt to intimidate startles the listener who then reacts with ridicule.

Moronic nonsense.

Correll gives Trump a chance on his changing his mind but won’t give it to Cruz.

Cecil asked for an example of another candidate walking it back. I gave one.

Correll says Trump deserves a fair and square chance. My reaction is that the far right reactionaries deserve nothing but a boot rhetorically in the seat of the pants.

If one faction of a group is treated like shit, that faction will not stay for long.

We respected the process when McCain won. Now you moderates owe us the same.

By the way, Mensa Boy, my name is CECILIE, not Cecil. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even read.

No one owes you jack shit. Good to know Trump's managed to bullshit you into an entitlement mentality. Should go down easy when he reverts to his natural liberalism, because you're already prepared to think like one of them.

 

[Pogo]

As, I'm sure, is putting together a campaign that more closely resembles the Three Stooges than a knowledgeable, competent political staff and steps on its johnson with monotonous regularity.

OK, now that I might steal. Eloquent phrasing.

 

[Correll]

And Correll demonstrates why we should not vote for him, and he did it respectfully until the end.

Correll, we are never going to allow the far right to make a decision to badly hurt the GOP.

If Trump is the candidate, the GOP mainstream and establishment will make sure he loses the national election.

And is standard, I addressed each one of your points and you ignore all my replies in favor of empty pronouncements.

You make your points, then refuse to defend them. IF pushed you dismiss your enemy with some vague bullshit about them being "far right" or "racist" or claiming that "you have already proven that".

And that is why you get called an asshole. Because your behavior calls for it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Correll demonstrates why we should not vote for him, and he did it respectfully until the end.

Correll, we are never going to allow the far right to make a decision to badly hurt the GOP.

If Trump is the candidate, the GOP mainstream and establishment will make sure he loses the national election.

And is standard, I addressed each one of your points and you ignore all my replies in favor of empty pronouncements. You make your points, then refuse to defend them. IF pushed you dismiss your enemy with some vague bullshit about them being "far right" or "racist" or claiming that "you have already proven that".

And that is why you get called an asshole. Because your behavior calls for it.

Your points in this thread over and over. Our points who oppose you have been defend. That you are far right is something you have claimed yourself. That you deny you are racist means nothing in the light of your postings. Call names all you want. We don't care. Trump will not be president. The far right is going to pay now for everything beginning with the John Birch Society so long ago that happened in the last sixty years.

 

[Dragonlady]

And is standard, I addressed each one of your points and you ignore all my replies in favor of empty pronouncements.

You make your points, then refuse to defend them. IF pushed you dismiss your enemy with some vague bullshit about them being "far right" or "racist" or claiming that "you have already proven that".

And that is why you get called an asshole. Because your behavior calls for it.

No, you haven't addressed anything. You deny there is a problem. Marla Maples found out which church Trump belonged to, joined the church and endeavoured to meet him. She became his mistress, got pregnant and became his wife. It seems pretty clear to the rest of us, that this is a situation where a younger, less business savy woman completed outfoxed him.

He less than stellar record as a business negotiator has been recited ad nauseum. But of course that's just a smear campaign.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Correll]

1. What gives you the idea that he is easily swayed?

I think I actually said "easily manipulated". Why do I think that? Let's start with the fact that the guy has had three trophy wives, two models and an actress, the two exes of which took him for big bucks despite prenup agreements. Trophy wifing isn't a casual game, particularly when it comes to negotiating that prenup; it's ALL about finding your sucker and manipulating his ego. You think there aren't scads of beautiful women competing? The winner is usually the best manipulator. (And no, Tiny Hands, they don't want you because you're such a stud.)

Then let's move on to his shameless pandering to whomever he's addressing at the moment. You can say, "Oh, that's just politicking", but successful politicians with ideological principles don't flip-flop to get the audience du jour to like them. They find different ways to tailor and deliver the same message. Donald Trump can be persuaded to say and do what people want because his ego can't stand the idea of someone not venerating him, or worse, disagreeing with him or criticizing him.

Let's also consider his utter lack of anything like a set of guiding principles to lend his policies structural coherence, and his abysmal ignorance about most subjects. It doesn't take hurricane-force winds to blow a ship around if that ship has no rudder or anchor. Do you really think it's that difficult to persuade someone on a subject about which they know little or nothing, and can't be bothered to learn? Politics is full of people whose primary job skill is persuasiveness. Donald Trump gets routinely mousetrapped into taking conflicting positions - sometimes in the same conversation - by journalists, for God's sake.

Finally, look at the flip side of Trump's egotistical inability to ever be criticized or challenged on anything without going ballistic: his constant of equating "good person" with "he likes me". Any time another person's name is brought up to Donald Trump, he does one of two things. He either begins to personally denigrate them because they aren't supporters of his, or he reacts with, "Oh, yeah, he's a great guy. We're friends. He loves me. Great guy." This is a man whose massive, fragile conceit has made him vulnerable to flattery and manipulation.

2. Mexico has a policy that violates our Sovereignty constantly on a massive scale, ie encouraging illegal immigration. Any relationship with Mexico based on reality should be worse unless they immediately starting working in good faith to help US resolve this.

I don't deny that Mexico is a problem, or that the response to it should be based in reality. On the contrary, it's one of the reasons I refuse to support Trump. A realistic policy responding to Mexico's behavior is NOT to march in and try to beat them to death with your swinging cod, or to suffocate them with the sheer weight of your testosterone-soaked ego. Trump has already antagonized Mexico and made them defensive and hostile in any dealings with them, particularly if those dealings involve Donald Trump. However much you might think they deserve it, that still doesn't make it smart or productive in the long run.

3. We have a 450 trillion dollar a year trade deficit. He will be the first President in a long time that will be thinking of Trade in the context of advancing American interests. He will have tremendous leverage as the leader of the world's largest market. Considering the horrific policy we have now, the bar to do better or at least not worse, is just about as low as it can be.

I can't imagine what makes you think Donald Trump knows much of anything about international trade, and every time I hear about "trade deficit", I wonder the same thing about the person saying it.

Walter Williams addressed this in a very clear manner in a recent column:

A trade deficit is when people in one country buy more from another country than the other country’s people buy from them. There cannot be a trade deficit in a true economic sense. Let’s examine this.

I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me. That means I have a trade deficit with my grocer. My grocer buys more from his wholesaler than his wholesaler buys from him. But there is really no trade imbalance, whether my grocer is down the street, in Canada or, God forbid, in China.

Here is what happens: When I purchase $100 worth of groceries, my goods account (groceries) rises, but my capital account (money) falls by $100. For my grocer, it is the opposite. His goods account falls by $100, but his capital account rises by $100. Looking at only the goods account, we would see trade deficits, but if we included the capital accounts, we would see a trade balance. That is true whether we are talking about domestic trade or we are talking about foreign trade.

The uninformed buys into the mercantilist creed that trade deficits are bad and trade surpluses are good.

He goes on to note that the 1930s had trade surpluses every year except 1936. Clearly, trade surpluses do not equal prosperity.

International trade operates under the same general principles as domestic trade. When we, as consumers, purchase goods from China and the Chinese do not spend a like amount for goods from us, there is a current account deficit. In 2015, Americans purchased $482 billion worth of goods from China. The Chinese purchased only $116 billion worth of goods from us, producing a current account deficit with China of $366 billion.

Instead of purchasing tangible goods, the Chinese purchase capital goods — such as corporate stocks, bonds and U.S. Treasury debt instruments. The Chinese purchase more capital goods from us than we purchase of the same from them. That means the deficit on our current account is matched by the surplus on our capital account.

This issue is also explored in this paper from the Cato Institute:

Are Trade Deficits Really Bad News?

Do I think Donald Trump knows the full story on trade deficits and trade balances? I have no idea. But to listen to his rhetoric, he either doesn't have a clue about international trade, or he's cynically lying his ass off to manipulate supporters who don't have a clue.

4. Note how quickly he reversed himself on "punishing women" when he was more fully informed on the subject. He is obviously open to constructive criticism and new information.

The question to ask is, why does he NEED to be "constructively criticized" on so many things? Why is he wandering around, shooting his mouth off about issues on which he hasn't spent five minutes thought, or bothered to have anyone else explain to him? Has someone been keeping it a secret from him that these issues come up in Presidential campaigns, not to mention the actual job? That he's going to be asked about them, and might want to have something to say? Do you see Ted Cruz having to walk back some half-assed "Oh, gee, I never thought about it before" comment every week, or more often sometimes? No, you don't, because Ted Cruz came to the test after studying and preparing, not just planning to wing it with his "good brain".

The time to become informed on the subject of abortion, or any current political issue, is BEFORE you campaign to be President, not on the fly.

If the GOP would, instead of validating the attempt to paint Trump and much of the GOP base as bigots and hicks, and challenge the idea that Trump is the worst thing that ever happened, we can turn this panic off and reverse the trend of those numbers quickly.

WHY should the GOP not validate the "attempt to paint Trump as a bigot and hick"? He IS. He's ignorant white trash with money, and HE'S the one painting himself that way. You can't blame other people for simply noticing and commenting on it.

The GOP doesn't owe you OR Trump any effort to try to paper over his foolish capering and misbehavior, nor is there a single reason under the sun for them to want to "turn the panic off" or reverse his trends. He's doing it to himself, and in the process giving everyone who isn't a Trumpette no reason whatsoever to save him, and loads of reasons not to.

1.a.Your assumption that his marriages failed because he was out "swayed" by women targeting him instead of his own motivations is unsupported.

I didn't say his marriages failed because he was manipulated. I said he got married because they manipulated him. And they got some pretty favorable prenup deals the same way.

1b A politician "pandering" for votes is not being manipulated, but trying to manipulate others.

Like I said, successful politicians don't pander the way Trump does. They keep their message, and tailor it to their audience. Trump, on the other hand, changes his message outright to gain approval.

1c Trump does NOT get routinely mousetrapped by journalists. He normally manipulates them like a master. His flubbing the question on Abortion was an exception, not the rule.

Acting outrageous to gain media attention is not "master manipulation". Any half-assed protester, criminal, or terrorist can figure that one out. May I submit for your edification Occupy Wallstreet, Black Lives Matter, the Unabomber, any gangbanger doing a drive-by in LA on any given day?

Truth is, the media gets him to make a fool of himself on a routine basis. He just doesn't always care.

1d HIs pubic appearance of "going ballistic" is part of his public persona, that recent events show are NOT part of his behind the scene work behavior. He accepted criticism of his flubbing the abortion question and responded appropriately. I also started an interesting thread from Salon, with an interview with Newt Gingrich who met with Trump, with reports that support that.

Even if you were correct, which I highly doubt, is it supposed to be a comfort to me that a man who wants to be President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, regularly behaves like a tantrum-throwing buffoon on purpose because he thinks it looks good?

I'm also not all that reassured by Newt Gingrich, of all people, on appropriate behavior for a political candidate.

And this still doesn't address the issues of 1) "the abortion question" is far from the only thing he's ever said that was egregious, and 2) WHY does he need to be "constructively criticized" so damned often, whether he accepts it or not? Why does he not already know and prepare for the issues he's going to get questioned about? Why are they a surprise to him and his campaign staff?

2. Any dealing with Mexico with American interests in mind, is going to make Mexico antagonistic, hostile and defensive, for they have a policy of advancing their interests at the expense of ours. And they know it, even if most of US do not. Trump is the MOST credible candidate when it comes to reversing that. All the other candidates have a record of being on the wrong side of that issue.

No, that's not true. All countries have a policy of advancing their own interests, but it's not necessarily true that it's at the expense of the interests of others', unless it has to be, or that they are automatically hostile and defensive simply because we advance our own interests. This isn't a schoolyard, and we're not talking about children here.

Trump is not even remotely credible on the subject, unless one does not, in fact, know much of anything about international diplomacy in general, or Mexican-American relations in specific. He just spouts nationalist, jingoistic pap that sounds macho, and a bunch of angry bohunks lap it up because it resonates with memories of their last bar fight.

And yes, I do sound condescending and dismissive, but no more so than Donald Trump does, and the difference is that I'M not running for President.

3. The problem with that scenario, is that there are TWO grocers, one American and one Chinese. And the Chinese one is playing hard ball, and the American one is losing his house.

The long term effects of Free Trade are NOT what we were promised. That policy needs reversed.

Well, thank you for that deep, insightful analysis of trade deficits and the specific issues therein. I am staggered by your brilliance and the sheer weight of facts and information that you've dropped on me.

If this sort of derivative sloganeering is what I'm going to get in return for my attempts to address your questions thoughtfully and specifically, the way you requested, then say so now, and I'll go back to talking about Donny Boy's $5 spray tan and roadkill comb-over. I don't HAVE to spend time and effort composing long explanatory posts for you. I'm doing it as a courtesy because you asked me to, and I expect the same in return.

4. Yes, I do see candidates doing that. Ted Cruz walked back quite a few of his policy positions when Trump hit the scene and made Immigration and Trade the top issues. And that wasn't a flubbed answer that he walked back. Those were long standing policy beliefs.

Name them, and cite your sources.

5. Trump is not a bigot or a Hick. There is nothing racist about his policies. And by embracing the slander the Media is directing at Trump and his large base among the Republican Base, the leadership is doing long term damage to the party.

Trump is not a bigot in the sense that David Duke is, but I'm pretty sure that's mostly because he doesn't really think of other people as real to a great enough extent to hate them. He seems to just generally view the rest of the world with a vague contempt because they're not him. His statements are, however, quite offensive and even over the line into bigoted.

And as a life long Republican, who voted for moderates when they won primaries fair and square, they do own me. They owe me the same consideration that I gave them as part of our team.

No, the Republican Party doesn't owe you, personally, a damned thing when you're weighed against all the OTHER people who also voted for their candidates previously. That's the part you keep forgetting because you've listened to Trump for so long that his egocentrism has rubbed off on you: YOU are not that important, individually. You're just one face in a crowd of millions, and the GOP has to balance the desires of ALL its voters and potential voters, not just you.

And they don't owe it to Donald Trump to piss on him if he was on fire, if it required them to walk all the way across the street to do it.

1. Fine. Your assumption that he married those women because he was manipulated and not because he wanted to is unsupported.

Who said he didn't want to? Whole point of manipulation is to convince someone they want to do something.

2. If he is still committed to deporting the illegals, trying to reverse the ever rising Trade Deficit and NOT screwing around with Putin, then he is still on the message I care about. This still seems to be a complaint about campaigning style and hardly a reason for the panic we see.

Wrong. It's a complaint about the disconnect between what he SAYS and what he's likely to DO, or likely to be capable of doing. That's a very good reason for panic, or would be if I thought for a second this bumbling narcissist was likely to win, but the longer he goes on, the less I think so.

3. It is a lot more than that. Here is an article about a Washington Post review of his communication skill.

It’s not chaos. It’s Trump’s campaign strategy.

This part is my favorite.

"The Post’s analysis found several qualities to Trump’s approach. First is a pattern of experimentation that suggests that he is testing his insults and attacks as he goes along. Like a team of corporate marketers, Trump understands the value of message-testing — but he appears to do it spontaneously, behind the lectern and on live television."

Trump is operating on a level most people can't even see. He is so good at his calculated delivery that he makes it look spontaneous.

Yes, I'm sure that alienating huge segments of the voting population and generating unfavorability ratings you rarely see in a politician LEAVING office, let alone one running for office, is all part of his brilliant master plan. As, I'm sure, is putting together a campaign that more closely resembles the Three Stooges than a knowledgeable, competent political staff and steps on its johnson with monotonous regularity.

4. Yes. A calculated method of intimidation can be a valuable tool when dealing with hostile parties, while an actual bad temper, like Hillary supposedly has, has nothing positive to bring to the table.

Lovely rationalization. "We hate the RNC for bullying us, so we get to bully everyone else instead!"

5. My point was specific to Mexico, which has a policy of advancing it's interest at the expense of ours, so in ANY attempt to seriously address that is going to make Mexico hostile and defensive.

Trump is the most credible on this issue, because ALL the other candidates have a record of being on the wrong side of this issue.

Of course the other candidates have less-perfect records on the issue, because THEY actually HAVE records. Trump has never done anything but run his gums, which means you can project any assumptions you like onto him.

That, of course, is referring to legislative and voting records. Trump does have a record on the subject of immigration, both legal and illegal, and it's somewhat less "pure" than his rhetoric.

And no, there's no reason why dealing with Mexico on this subject has to make them hostile, antagonized, and defensive. It will make them resistant, I don't doubt, but that's not the same thing.

6. YOur mistake was assuming that I do not know the Theory of Free Trade. I know it well, I have been a Free Trader most of my life.

But the reality is that in practice we are not getting the results we expected. Displaced workers are NOT retraining and moving to the new better jobs created by economic growth.

A plant closes. Not everyone has the capacity to train for a newer more skilled job that can replace that pay.

Many do. They investigate what careers will be hot when they graduate in 4 years.

SOme of them fail and now are underemployed and with student debt.

Some pass and find that the jobs they thought they were going to get have moved to China.

Some pass and find that the company has decided to save money with H1B workers.

Some pass and apply for the job and find out that 73 people applied for that job.

YOu go into the smaller cities and towns and rural areas of the Rust Belt, and there are vast swaths that are dead. Towns with no hope, and no opportunities.

It's hard NOT to assume you know very little about trade, when you say manifestly silly things about it and flatly refuse to contribute anything more than blurbs and slogans on the subject. My mistake was in assuming that you would be courteous enough to return the same thought and detail that you demanded from me.

So I think after I finish this response, that will be the end of dignifying this as some sort of serious, in-depth discussion, and we'll go back to discussing how Donald Trump is a no-class blowhard who looks like a circus clown.

7. Here is one on Ted Cruz.

Did Cruz Support Legalization?

"And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows,"

That was 2013.

Now he is against that. Fact check explains his story on this. YOu may or may not believe him.

Would you like another one?

Feel free to continue posting all the slogans and memes you like, since it's clear that you're not going to do otherwise, no matter how much you demand it from others. Just don't expect me to treat it, or you, as deserving of respect any further. Basically, this is just cult of personality voting, and as I said, my mistake was in taking you at your word that you wanted to have a serious discussion. Carry on with your Big Gulp of Trump Koolaid.

1. Or maybe he's just a serial monogamist. Your assumption that this is evidence that this is evidence of being easily manipulated is unsupported.

2. That is a concern with ALL candidates. I don't recall EVER hearing one say, "I plan to try to do X, but there is no way I'm getting it past Congress or the Courts". For you to focus on this only when Trump does it shows that it is not a real reason for your panic. Or the panic in general.

3. You kind of moved the Goal Posts there. We were discussing his ability, and when I posted a link with an analysis suggesting that his communication ability was more than you thought, you changed the discussion to how well his overall campaign is doing.

4. The only rationalization here is yours, where you use a stawman to avoid dealing with my completely valid point that a calculated method of intimidation can be a valuable tool for a leader when dealing with Hostile Parties.

5.a. IMO, no record is better than a record of betrayal. I guess you could see it the other way...
Regardless, fear of flipflopping, on policies that you don't support, is hardly reason for the panic and fearmongering we are seeing.

5b. I expressed my reasons for believing that we cannot address this issue without making Mexico hostile. Any solution to this problem will seriously HARM Mexico's interests. Your hope that that is not so, seems based on Hope and nothing else. And perhaps a searching for a REASON to justify the panic and fearmongering we are seeing.

6. My point about displaced workers not being able to transition to new fields in a Timely Manner stands. Instead of addressing it, you are looking for rationalizations to NOT address it.

7. I linked you to Fact Check. That is hardly a Meme or a slogan. The rest of your post is just more rationalizations for your NOT addressing my point which I had supported and offered to support more, if you wanted it. My point stands. Candidates "walking back" on a statement is hardly new or limited to Trump and NOT a reason for the panic and fearmongering we see.

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of this improves Trump's terrible overall ratings with electorate and in comparison to the Dem candidates.

 

[Correll]

Correll cannot prove that Trump was not manipulated into marriage by women as the evidence suggests.

Cecil is the one that brought it up as evidence against Trump. It is on him to prove it.

Correll has given us no reason to believe that Trump really will deport illegals.

Trump could be lying. But at least he does not have a documented record of trying to give the illegals amnesty. IMO, that makes him the most credible.

Correll has not shown how Trump can reverse the Trade Deficit.

I'm not sure HOW he plans to do it. I just note the he is the only Republican pledged to try. The rest are still mired in the ideology of Free Trade.

Correll says he is has been a Free Trader all of his life, without any evidence or support.

??? Wow. That's an incredibly minor point. What "Evidence" of my personal opinion would you expect to see? Magic Brain scans?

Correll is foolish to believe that Trump can handle Putin.

Trump is the only republican who has adjusted to the Cold War being over and who doesn't WANT to "handle" PUtin. That's a big plus in my book.

The article is wrong that Trump “is testing his insults and attacks.” In fact he is floundering. Instead of message testing, he can’t grasp either the media or the message.

He is being buried under a massive propaganda campaign. Far greater men have been destroyed by far less. This in not about what flaws he has, but how completely corrupt the media and the Political Class is.

Trump’s campaign strategy has been expedient and eclectic, and now the opponents are able to handle it without difficulty.

He has crushed all his opponents in the Primaries. The Leadership is desperately trying, not to defeat him, but to get a brokered convention so they can get the decision AWAY from the voters.

Trump’s bad temper and his attempt to intimidate startles the listener who then reacts with ridicule.

Moronic nonsense.

Correll gives Trump a chance on his changing his mind but won’t give it to Cruz.

Cecil asked for an example of another candidate walking it back. I gave one.

Correll says Trump deserves a fair and square chance. My reaction is that the far right reactionaries deserve nothing but a boot rhetorically in the seat of the pants.

If one faction of a group is treated like shit, that faction will not stay for long.

We respected the process when McCain won. Now you moderates owe us the same.

By the way, Mensa Boy, my name is CECILIE, not Cecil. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even read.

No one owes you jack shit. Good to know Trump's managed to bullshit you into an entitlement mentality. Should go down easy when he reverts to his natural liberalism, because you're already prepared to think like one of them.

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

 

[Correll]

And Correll demonstrates why we should not vote for him, and he did it respectfully until the end.

Correll, we are never going to allow the far right to make a decision to badly hurt the GOP.

If Trump is the candidate, the GOP mainstream and establishment will make sure he loses the national election.

And is standard, I addressed each one of your points and you ignore all my replies in favor of empty pronouncements. You make your points, then refuse to defend them. IF pushed you dismiss your enemy with some vague bullshit about them being "far right" or "racist" or claiming that "you have already proven that".

And that is why you get called an asshole. Because your behavior calls for it.

Your points in this thread over and over. Our points who oppose you have been defend. That you are far right is something you have claimed yourself. That you deny you are racist means nothing in the light of your postings. Call names all you want. We don't care. Trump will not be president. The far right is going to pay now for everything beginning with the John Birch Society so long ago that happened in the last sixty years.

Rhetorical Question: "In light of" WHAT postings?

Rhetorical because I know you will NOT defend your position.


Because you can't.

If you were to link to one of my posts, it will be clear that it is NOT racist by the dictionary definition of the word, and you would have to admit to the circular reasoning that leads you to "conclude" that the posting was "code" or some such bullshit.

So, you will instead post some rationalization of why you will NOT defend your insulting claims.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll, you don't get "just once more." You can go back and read if you wish. Your comments have been racist almost from day one on the Board. Anyone can do so.

Correll is the link for anyone who wants to root through that garbage.

Now the OP is that Trump has the worst negatives of just any candidate.

Indeed, he does.

 

[Correll]

Correll, you don't get "just once more." You can go back and read if you wish. Your comments have been racist almost from day one on the Board. Anyone can do so.

Correll is the link for anyone who wants to root through that garbage.

Now the OP is that Trump has the worst negatives of just any candidate.

Indeed, he does.

Exactly as I predicted.

YOu make false accusations against people you disagree with and when called on your bullshit, refuse to either defend your vile slander NOR admit that you were wrong.

There is a name for people like you, and it rhymes with Tick.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll, you don't get "just once more." You can go back and read if you wish. Your comments have been racist almost from day one on the Board. Anyone can do so.

Correll is the link for anyone who wants to root through that garbage.

Now the OP is that Trump has the worst negatives of just any candidate.

Indeed, he does.

Exactly as I predicted. YOu make false accusations against people you disagree with and when called on your bullshit, refuse to either defend your vile slander NOR admit that you were wrong. There is a name for people like you, and it rhymes with Tick.

You set a false standard and then pat yourself on the back. The link is above for any who wish to read up on your racism.

You do understand the term?