Why Are You Opposed to Trump?

[Boss]

Just like the other person, you assume two incorrect things:
1. That the GOP will retain control of congress.
2. That given that, they won't cow tow to anything Hillary wants just like they did for 0bama.

Well nothing can be assumed but I don't know what kind of crystal ball you have that says we will lose Congress. Time and time again, the electorate shows we like balance... A republican president... a democrat congress... and visa versa. So with Democrats continuing their reign in the White House, Republicans are more likely to remain in control of Congress.

As for Establishment republicans catering to Hillary like they did for Obama... I should think they would have learned their lesson by now. If they continue what they've done, the conservative voice I mentioned earlier won't be running on the GOP ticket... there will be a new party in town.

 

[PredFan]

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad. Don't underestimate him.

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad? I'll go you one better... if elected, he will set back the Conservative movement 40 years. Because everything he does will be tied to Conservatives and The Right. All of us who are vocally not supporting him... we won't matter THEN! The Left will portray Conservatives as The Party of Trump and it's "death by association". So the Conservative movement, at least in our lifetime, is done if this man gets elected.

I don't give a rat's ass about the GOP, or Conservatives and their future. I care about US, my children and grandchildren's future. Hillary will do immediate and irreversible damage right away. Who gives a shit about winning the White House in 2020 when it's too fucking late?

What's the point of "winning the White House" with a liberal disaster masquerading as a Republican? What have you actually won? Bragging rights? Whoop de fucking do.

The point, as I said, is stopping Hillary.

No, that's YOUR point. MY point is for the country I love to have a good President who will reverse the damage that's been done so that my children can grow up and live in the same United States I did.

I know what your point is but if you remember, the reason we are having this discussion is because you disagree with MY POINT.

 

[PredFan]

Think about it. When in the entire history of the US has an entitlement program if any kind ever been reversed? With Hillary, they will be added, increased, lengthened, and solidified into permanence. Obamacare? It will become single payer and never ever return. You are naive if you think any of the damage she will do can ever be fixed.

Do I believe it's all over? No, but it will be if Hillary is POTUS. That is my whole point.

Under Trump, entitlement programs are going to be increased and expanded the same as under Hillary. The difference will be the salesman. Trump has gone on record saying he likes single payer. When he tells you he is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better.... that's what he means. Single payer. Not only will healthcare be government funded, he wants to set it up within the capitalist system so corporatists can screw the government.

You're being sold a bill of goods by a man who thinks you're not that smart. He's a New York liberal and has been his entire life... until he decided to run for president. Now he's like the Pied Piper with all you people following behind, bamboozled into believing he is going to do all these things he has promised... and he wouldn't dare lie to you because, well... he's not a politician! Yeah right!

You continue to criticise Trump because of what you think he might do and you ignore the fact of what Hillary WILL do. I didn't say trump was a saint, nor that he's a true conservative and for your information, I'm a Cruz supporter.

Trump is the lesser of the two evils, and you don't agree. I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

I was once on board with Trump but he pushed me off the train. As I said, I don't know that he would be "less evil" than Hillary in terms of the damage he is going to do to the Conservative movement. When he is done, a Republican or Conservative can hang it up... we'll never see one elected again. That's MY fear... that he is going to so damage the brand that we will never recover.

I am almost to the point of thinking, Hillary would have to battle Congress to get her SCOTUS picks and everything else, while conservatives could still make their case to the American people. I seriously doubt that narcissistic bitch can get through 4 years without getting herself impeached. Meanwhile, we keep control of Congress and in 4 years, run a principled conservative with a principled conservative message.

If I honestly believed Trump was a Conservative, committed to fundamental Conservative philosophy, I wouldn't have any problem voting for him in the general election.... but I know he is not. And every single thing he does that can be turned into something bad-- will be turned into something deplorable and paraded around by the left as an example of modern Conservatism. Think of how we took it in the shorts for all the Bush mistakes. Conservatives are STILL being blamed for Bush.

Just like the other person, you assume two incorrect things:
1. That the GOP will retain control of congress.
2. That given that, they won't cow tow to anything Hillary wants just like they did for 0bama.

It's amazing how you can hear something I never said, and then continue to hear it and argue against it despite being told that you're imagining shit. They have meds for hallucinations like that, you know.

Ok, you are a fellow conservative so I was trying to be patient and nice. But you have chosen to be an idiot about this.

Dismissed.

 

[PredFan]

Just like the other person, you assume two incorrect things:
1. That the GOP will retain control of congress.
2. That given that, they won't cow tow to anything Hillary wants just like they did for 0bama.

Well nothing can be assumed but I don't know what kind of crystal ball you have that says we will lose Congress. Time and time again, the electorate shows we like balance... A republican president... a democrat congress... and visa versa. So with Democrats continuing their reign in the White House, Republicans are more likely to remain in control of Congress.

As for Establishment republicans catering to Hillary like they did for Obama... I should think they would have learned their lesson by now. If they continue what they've done, the conservative voice I mentioned earlier won't be running on the GOP ticket... there will be a new party in town.

Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.

It isn't that they can't learn a lesson, it's that they won't.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I looked hard at Trump when all this started, and knew Cruze would be the other choice. Rubio was done when he betrayed those who sent him to washington, and the rest were pretty much retreads and washouts from past primareys. So at this point,I am a Cruz supporter. I can pull up his senate record and see consistency. Not so much with Donald Trump. Donald Trump just bounces around to much for me, and he just doesn't have the temperament for the job. He will also have lots of trouble with Hillery when it comes to who he gave money to in his past as a New York developer. He gave over $600,000.00 to democrats who backed things like gun control as well as unions. I don't hold the union thing against him thoigh. Unions build stuff and he needs them, but m afraid they are Inot him to deeply. I was able to find all that with a simple Google search. Hillery will bring more with her machine. All that and his behavior, all the winning and crying about the rules, unless they are in his favor, he hasn't complained about the Florida deligates.

So in short, go Ted.

You say his donations to Dems will hurt him, but the union stuff won't because he needs them to build stuff. My impression is that he gave money to politicians on both sides because buying politicians makes building things easier. He appeared to be politically agnostic when he was strictly a businessman. I don't follow your reasoning.

Between 1989 and 2010, The Donald gave $314,300 to Democratic groups and candidates and $290,600 to Republicans, according to a Daily Caller analysis of records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.


But Trump’s donation gap was even larger during the mid-2000s, which saw the end of Republican congressional majorities and the ascendance of the Democratic party.


Overall in the 2006 election cycle, Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., donated $77,200 to Democrats versus only $24,250 on Republicans. Looking back to the 2004 cycle, the pair donated $40,500 to Democrats and only $17,250 to the GOP.

Donald Trump Donated Heavily To Democrats, Especially During Election Which Put Reid And Pelosi In Power

In what universe does that look "politically agnostic"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emotion and arrogance can make some people very unpleasant.

 

[Boss]

Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.

It isn't that they can't learn a lesson, it's that they won't.

You may be right, in which case... we're watching history happen... the demise of a major political party.

Many of these establishment elites are going to find themselves in heated re-election campaigns. Many of them are going to be sent packing for home. We're going to keep electing principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and eventually, we will regain control of the party.

SOME of them are seeing the writing on the wall... we see this in how they are now coming to support Cruz over Trump. Believe me, they don't want to support Cruz but they don't have any other choice at this point.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.

It isn't that they can't learn a lesson, it's that they won't.

You may be right, in which case... we're watching history happen... the demise of a major political party.

Many of these establishment elites are going to find themselves in heated re-election campaigns. Many of them are going to be sent packing for home. We're going to keep electing principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and eventually, we will regain control of the party.

SOME of them are seeing the writing on the wall... we see this in how they are now coming to support Cruz over Trump. Believe me, they don't want to support Cruz but they don't have any other choice at this point.

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

 

[Boss]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cecilie1200]

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad? I'll go you one better... if elected, he will set back the Conservative movement 40 years. Because everything he does will be tied to Conservatives and The Right. All of us who are vocally not supporting him... we won't matter THEN! The Left will portray Conservatives as The Party of Trump and it's "death by association". So the Conservative movement, at least in our lifetime, is done if this man gets elected.

I don't give a rat's ass about the GOP, or Conservatives and their future. I care about US, my children and grandchildren's future. Hillary will do immediate and irreversible damage right away. Who gives a shit about winning the White House in 2020 when it's too fucking late?

What's the point of "winning the White House" with a liberal disaster masquerading as a Republican? What have you actually won? Bragging rights? Whoop de fucking do.

The point, as I said, is stopping Hillary.

No, that's YOUR point. MY point is for the country I love to have a good President who will reverse the damage that's been done so that my children can grow up and live in the same United States I did.

I know what your point is but if you remember, the reason we are having this discussion is because you disagree with MY POINT.

Yes, and MY point is the reason I disagree with YOUR point.

 

[PredFan]

Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.

It isn't that they can't learn a lesson, it's that they won't.

You may be right, in which case... we're watching history happen... the demise of a major political party.

Many of these establishment elites are going to find themselves in heated re-election campaigns. Many of them are going to be sent packing for home. We're going to keep electing principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and eventually, we will regain control of the party.

SOME of them are seeing the writing on the wall... we see this in how they are now coming to support Cruz over Trump. Believe me, they don't want to support Cruz but they don't have any other choice at this point.

Boehner's comments express the true feelings of the establishment GOP. That party is already done itself in. People have it wrong when they say that Trump is destroying the GOP. They have already done that, Trump is just a symptom, a result of what they have done. The way they treated Cruz before and now is also a symptom. I'm past worrying about the conservative brand and am now only worried about this country and its future.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Under Trump, entitlement programs are going to be increased and expanded the same as under Hillary. The difference will be the salesman. Trump has gone on record saying he likes single payer. When he tells you he is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better.... that's what he means. Single payer. Not only will healthcare be government funded, he wants to set it up within the capitalist system so corporatists can screw the government.

You're being sold a bill of goods by a man who thinks you're not that smart. He's a New York liberal and has been his entire life... until he decided to run for president. Now he's like the Pied Piper with all you people following behind, bamboozled into believing he is going to do all these things he has promised... and he wouldn't dare lie to you because, well... he's not a politician! Yeah right!

You continue to criticise Trump because of what you think he might do and you ignore the fact of what Hillary WILL do. I didn't say trump was a saint, nor that he's a true conservative and for your information, I'm a Cruz supporter.

Trump is the lesser of the two evils, and you don't agree. I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

I was once on board with Trump but he pushed me off the train. As I said, I don't know that he would be "less evil" than Hillary in terms of the damage he is going to do to the Conservative movement. When he is done, a Republican or Conservative can hang it up... we'll never see one elected again. That's MY fear... that he is going to so damage the brand that we will never recover.

I am almost to the point of thinking, Hillary would have to battle Congress to get her SCOTUS picks and everything else, while conservatives could still make their case to the American people. I seriously doubt that narcissistic bitch can get through 4 years without getting herself impeached. Meanwhile, we keep control of Congress and in 4 years, run a principled conservative with a principled conservative message.

If I honestly believed Trump was a Conservative, committed to fundamental Conservative philosophy, I wouldn't have any problem voting for him in the general election.... but I know he is not. And every single thing he does that can be turned into something bad-- will be turned into something deplorable and paraded around by the left as an example of modern Conservatism. Think of how we took it in the shorts for all the Bush mistakes. Conservatives are STILL being blamed for Bush.

Just like the other person, you assume two incorrect things:
1. That the GOP will retain control of congress.
2. That given that, they won't cow tow to anything Hillary wants just like they did for 0bama.

It's amazing how you can hear something I never said, and then continue to hear it and argue against it despite being told that you're imagining shit. They have meds for hallucinations like that, you know.

Ok, you are a fellow conservative so I was trying to be patient and nice. But you have chosen to be an idiot about this.

Dismissed.

"You have chosen to dislike Donald Trump AND insist that I actually read your posts, instead of just deriding what I want to think you said. Therefore, I am going to pretend to withdraw the respect I actually never gave you at all."

You stopped being a "fellow conservative" the instant you went in the tank for Trump, and this crap just proves it.

Call me when your balls grow back.

 

[PredFan]

Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.

It isn't that they can't learn a lesson, it's that they won't.

You may be right, in which case... we're watching history happen... the demise of a major political party.

Many of these establishment elites are going to find themselves in heated re-election campaigns. Many of them are going to be sent packing for home. We're going to keep electing principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and eventually, we will regain control of the party.

SOME of them are seeing the writing on the wall... we see this in how they are now coming to support Cruz over Trump. Believe me, they don't want to support Cruz but they don't have any other choice at this point.

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

It isn't yet too late for Cruz.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I looked hard at Trump when all this started, and knew Cruze would be the other choice. Rubio was done when he betrayed those who sent him to washington, and the rest were pretty much retreads and washouts from past primareys. So at this point,I am a Cruz supporter. I can pull up his senate record and see consistency. Not so much with Donald Trump. Donald Trump just bounces around to much for me, and he just doesn't have the temperament for the job. He will also have lots of trouble with Hillery when it comes to who he gave money to in his past as a New York developer. He gave over $600,000.00 to democrats who backed things like gun control as well as unions. I don't hold the union thing against him thoigh. Unions build stuff and he needs them, but m afraid they are Inot him to deeply. I was able to find all that with a simple Google search. Hillery will bring more with her machine. All that and his behavior, all the winning and crying about the rules, unless they are in his favor, he hasn't complained about the Florida deligates.

So in short, go Ted.

You say his donations to Dems will hurt him, but the union stuff won't because he needs them to build stuff. My impression is that he gave money to politicians on both sides because buying politicians makes building things easier. He appeared to be politically agnostic when he was strictly a businessman. I don't follow your reasoning.

Between 1989 and 2010, The Donald gave $314,300 to Democratic groups and candidates and $290,600 to Republicans, according to a Daily Caller analysis of records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.


But Trump’s donation gap was even larger during the mid-2000s, which saw the end of Republican congressional majorities and the ascendance of the Democratic party.


Overall in the 2006 election cycle, Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., donated $77,200 to Democrats versus only $24,250 on Republicans. Looking back to the 2004 cycle, the pair donated $40,500 to Democrats and only $17,250 to the GOP.

Donald Trump Donated Heavily To Democrats, Especially During Election Which Put Reid And Pelosi In Power

In what universe does that look "politically agnostic"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emotion and arrogance can make some people very unpleasant.

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

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

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

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

Ignorance is even more unpleasant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims of inevitability aside, they're both hanging on a slim chance, however much the Trumpettes want to distract from it.

Trump HAS to win on the first ballot. If he doesn't, he might as well go home at that point, because his delegate count will only go down in subsequent ballots. "Mr. Dealmaker" has proven that he's a fish out of water when it comes to persuading the delegates themselves. So if he can't get enough delegates who are forced to vote for him (in other words, on that first ballot), he's out.

Cruz, on the other hand, HAS to stop Trump from winning that first ballot. If he can do that, then the second ballot is most likely his.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.

It isn't that they can't learn a lesson, it's that they won't.

You may be right, in which case... we're watching history happen... the demise of a major political party.

Many of these establishment elites are going to find themselves in heated re-election campaigns. Many of them are going to be sent packing for home. We're going to keep electing principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and eventually, we will regain control of the party.

SOME of them are seeing the writing on the wall... we see this in how they are now coming to support Cruz over Trump. Believe me, they don't want to support Cruz but they don't have any other choice at this point.

Boehner's comments express the true feelings of the establishment GOP. That party is already done itself in. People have it wrong when they say that Trump is destroying the GOP. They have already done that, Trump is just a symptom, a result of what they have done. The way they treated Cruz before and now is also a symptom. I'm past worrying about the conservative brand and am now only worried about this country and its future.

I'm am with you on the point that the GOP did themselves in, Trump just came along at the right time.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You say his donations to Dems will hurt him, but the union stuff won't because he needs them to build stuff. My impression is that he gave money to politicians on both sides because buying politicians makes building things easier. He appeared to be politically agnostic when he was strictly a businessman. I don't follow your reasoning.

Between 1989 and 2010, The Donald gave $314,300 to Democratic groups and candidates and $290,600 to Republicans, according to a Daily Caller analysis of records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.


But Trump’s donation gap was even larger during the mid-2000s, which saw the end of Republican congressional majorities and the ascendance of the Democratic party.


Overall in the 2006 election cycle, Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., donated $77,200 to Democrats versus only $24,250 on Republicans. Looking back to the 2004 cycle, the pair donated $40,500 to Democrats and only $17,250 to the GOP.

Donald Trump Donated Heavily To Democrats, Especially During Election Which Put Reid And Pelosi In Power

In what universe does that look "politically agnostic"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emotion and arrogance can make some people very unpleasant.

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

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

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

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

Ignorance is even more unpleasant.

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

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

 

[Cecilie1200]

Between 1989 and 2010, The Donald gave $314,300 to Democratic groups and candidates and $290,600 to Republicans, according to a Daily Caller analysis of records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.


But Trump’s donation gap was even larger during the mid-2000s, which saw the end of Republican congressional majorities and the ascendance of the Democratic party.


Overall in the 2006 election cycle, Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., donated $77,200 to Democrats versus only $24,250 on Republicans. Looking back to the 2004 cycle, the pair donated $40,500 to Democrats and only $17,250 to the GOP.

Donald Trump Donated Heavily To Democrats, Especially During Election Which Put Reid And Pelosi In Power

In what universe does that look "politically agnostic"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emotion and arrogance can make some people very unpleasant.

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

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

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

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

Ignorance is even more unpleasant.

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

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

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

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

 

[Chuz Life]

Think about it. When in the entire history of the US has an entitlement program if any kind ever been reversed? With Hillary, they will be added, increased, lengthened, and solidified into permanence. Obamacare? It will become single payer and never ever return. You are naive if you think any of the damage she will do can ever be fixed.

Do I believe it's all over? No, but it will be if Hillary is POTUS. That is my whole point.

Under Trump, entitlement programs are going to be increased and expanded the same as under Hillary. The difference will be the salesman. Trump has gone on record saying he likes single payer. When he tells you he is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better.... that's what he means. Single payer. Not only will healthcare be government funded, he wants to set it up within the capitalist system so corporatists can screw the government.

You're being sold a bill of goods by a man who thinks you're not that smart. He's a New York liberal and has been his entire life... until he decided to run for president. Now he's like the Pied Piper with all you people following behind, bamboozled into believing he is going to do all these things he has promised... and he wouldn't dare lie to you because, well... he's not a politician! Yeah right!

You continue to criticise Trump because of what you think he might do and you ignore the fact of what Hillary WILL do. I didn't say trump was a saint, nor that he's a true conservative and for your information, I'm a Cruz supporter.

Trump is the lesser of the two evils, and you don't agree. I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

I was once on board with Trump but he pushed me off the train. As I said, I don't know that he would be "less evil" than Hillary in terms of the damage he is going to do to the Conservative movement. When he is done, a Republican or Conservative can hang it up... we'll never see one elected again. That's MY fear... that he is going to so damage the brand that we will never recover.

I am almost to the point of thinking, Hillary would have to battle Congress to get her SCOTUS picks and everything else, while conservatives could still make their case to the American people. I seriously doubt that narcissistic bitch can get through 4 years without getting herself impeached. Meanwhile, we keep control of Congress and in 4 years, run a principled conservative with a principled conservative message.

If I honestly believed Trump was a Conservative, committed to fundamental Conservative philosophy, I wouldn't have any problem voting for him in the general election.... but I know he is not. And every single thing he does that can be turned into something bad-- will be turned into something deplorable and paraded around by the left as an example of modern Conservatism. Think of how we took it in the shorts for all the Bush mistakes. Conservatives are STILL being blamed for Bush.

I diagree with part of your post.

I think that (if anything) this whole Trump deal will result in a stronger more electable pool of conservative candidates next election cycle.

Conservatives do not abandon their core beliefs and principles, just because they occasionaly lose on popularity.

If this election comes down to either Trump or Hitlary being elected. . . The result will be an increasing demand for a more conservative (in my opinion) to address those principled concerns next tome.