Can Trump beat Clinton?

[77]

Not a huge Trump fan but the more the establishment  elite politicians go after him on both sides makes me realize how scared they are of losing their power and rule over the American people and that makes me happy. He will surround himself with competent people and probably not a lot of them! JMO 

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, PN-G bamatex said:

The establishment was also behind the both Bushes, Nixon and Eisenhower. And when Bush 41 ran the second time, and when Dole ran, it was against a Clinton.

It's kind of peculiar how half insane billionaires have a way of popping up in the Republican primary and threatening to run third party every single time there's a Clinton in the race and stiff establishment competition on the Republican side, isn't it?

But hey, what do I know? I'm just some dumb college kid, remember? I didn't spend four years studying this or anything.

Y'all go ahead and keep marching to your political graves. We'll see how you feel come November.

Don't kid yourself...the establishment you seem to be so fond of is digging this grave....I haven't contributed to any of it, I didn't vote for Trump.

Trump is only taking advantage or their poor management of the party.

You do know you can "study" and understand the political environment without a classroom, right?

[smitty]

1 hour ago, PN-G bamatex said:

The establishment was also behind the both Bushes, Nixon and Eisenhower. And when Bush 41 ran the second time, and when Dole ran, it was against a Clinton.

It's kind of peculiar how half insane billionaires have a way of popping up in the Republican primary and threatening to run third party every single time there's a Clinton in the race and stiff establishment competition on the Republican side, isn't it?

But hey, what do I know? I'm just some dumb college kid, remember? I didn't spend four years studying this or anything.

Y'all go ahead and keep marching to your political graves. We'll see how you feel come November.

Bush 1 lost after not acting like Reagan.  Eisenhower was a war hero.  Nixon, well, we know how that turned out.  2nd Bush, well, barely won, but did.  Didn't do much for controlling the size of government.  Putting up candidates just to put them up thinking they could win, well if they do, then what have you accomplished?  Heck, Nixon gave us the EPA. 

It was really sad when the establishment's choice, Romney, couldn't even beat the worst President in history.  Again, not sure what's accomplished when/if they win.

[PN-G bamatex]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Don't kid yourself...the establishment you seem to be so fond of is digging this grave....I haven't contributed to any of it, I didn't vote for Trump.

Trump is only taking advantage or their poor management of the party.

You do know you can "study" and understand the political environment without a classroom, right?

Was my post a response to you? Nope. Pretty sure that was smitty I quoted.

I'm not "fond" of the establishment. Frankly, I have a lot more reason to hate the Republican establishment than you do. But unlike some people on this site and out there in the electorate, I'm not letting my anger with the "establishment" or any other element of the party leave me politically deaf, dumb and stupid. Good horse sense counts for a heck of a lot more in politics than being upset with somebody ever will.

And yes, I am very much aware that you can "study" the political environment outside a classroom. You know how you do that? Things like working on campaigna, working for a legislator, helping draft legislation and digging through mountains of polling data. When did you do any of that?

[LumRaiderFan]

32 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Was my post a response to you? Nope. Pretty sure that was smitty I quoted.

I'm not "fond" of the establishment. Frankly, I have a lot more reason to hate the Republican establishment than you do. But unlike some people on this site and out there in the electorate, I'm not letting my anger with the "establishment" or any other element of the party leave me politically deaf, dumb and stupid. Good horse sense counts for a heck of a lot more in politics than being upset with somebody ever will.

And yes, I am very much aware that you can "study" the political environment outside a classroom. You know how you do that? Things like working on campaigna, working for a legislator, helping draft legislation and digging through mountains of polling data. When did you do any of that?

You addressed y'all (plural) so I jumped in...and it is a public forum.

You and I probably have a close opinion of Trump as the nominee...neither would like to see him there.

My main point is that Trump's success is directly related to the GOP's failure to back/produce a decent candidate and folks are tired of it.

I have actually worked on a campaign (phones) many years ago...talking Texans into coming out to vote for a conservative back then was pretty boring.

[PN-G bamatex]

2 hours ago, smitty said:

Bush 1 lost after not acting like Reagan.  Eisenhower was a war hero.  Nixon, well, we know how that turned out.  2nd Bush, well, barely won, but did.  Didn't do much for controlling the size of government.  Putting up candidates just to put them up thinking they could win, well if they do, then what have you accomplished?  Heck, Nixon gave us the EPA. 

It was really sad when the establishment's choice, Romney, couldn't even beat the worst President in history.  Again, not sure what's accomplished when/if they win.

No, Bush 41 lost during a recession. It's common for changes of power to take place in the midst of economic hardship - in fact, if there's a single variable you can link major shake-ups in the line-up in Washington to over the last several decades, it's the shape the economy's in. That was the case in 1992, where you can trace the polling data that had Bush 41 ahead of Clinton literally up until the week of the election. Economics drives elections.

So Nixon gave us the EPA. Are you saying we don't need the EPA? And how his presidency ended has nothing to do with the fact that he was elected two landslides that have only been outdone by other Republicans.

And no, Romney didn't lose to the worst president in history. Why? Because...

*NEWSFLASH*: Barack Obama is NOT THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!!!!

Shocking! I know!

Seriously, are you actually so blindly caught up in all the rhetoric that you believe that? Do you really think Obama could compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude? Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? For the love of God, man, come to your senses.

I'm not going to sit here and say that he's been a good president, because he hasn't. It's hard to make the argument that he's been a decent president. But he is not, by any means, the worst in history, and to say so is to exaggerate in the same way that so many pundits do, further driving the polarization and the demonization of the other side that is ripping this country to shreds.

For the last five years, I have watched you make post after post and start thread after thread where you throw out these half-baked articles that masquerade as "journalism" from all these grassroots, far right-wing media organizations that come across normal day-to-day operations that are just part of governing, and think they've stumbled onto the next great clue Barack Obama's plot to take over the world, never bothering to even try to get some kind of opinion from someone with actual experience in governing to add context to whatever it is they're reporting on because all they want to do is jump to conspiratorial conclusions. And do you know why they're doing that?

*NEWSFLASH*: Because They Want To P*ss People Like You Off, So You'll Go To The Polls And Vote For Whoever They Tell You To Vote For

More shock!

Seriously, how do you think we end up with crap like this?

Do you think this is just coincidence? Or do you think this is the tactic of people who have turned phrases like "establishment" and "RINO" into dirty words they can use to slander elected officials who haven't really done anything wrong, but just don't go along with the hard right on every single issue?

Do you actually believe that there's some great benefit to you, or any other average person, if the Republican establishment up and crumbles in the middle of this election? Do you think that's somehow going to make it harder on the Democrats?

Do you actually think the people who are leading you down this path, spewing all this rhetoric and fomenting all this anger, are somehow on your side? Do you think they really have your interests at heart? Or is it really in their interest to take over an entire party and destroy the establishment political players, and they're just using you as a willing dupe?

Let's forget about Donald Trump for a minute and take your conservative messiah, smitty. Ted Cruz. Do you actually think he's as anti-amnesty as he says he is? Do you really believe a guy who...

SPECIFICALLY WORKED FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON THE 2006 IMMIGRATION REFORM PACKAGE THAT INCLUDED AMNESTY

... is now all of the sudden against it? Do you believe a man who...

IS ON VIDEO ADVOCATING FOR A PATH TO LEGALIZED CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE

... is really as anti-immigration as he's telling you he is? Do you believe a man who...

LITERALLY CHANGED HIS VOTE ON AN EXPENSIVE CROP INSURANCE BILL IN THE MIDDLE OF ROLL CALL ON THE SENATE FLOOR BECAUSE HE WAS REMINDED ABOUT THE IOWA PRIMARY

... is really as committed to fiscal conservatism and budget reform as he says he is?

Does that sound like "consistent" conservatism to you? Or does it sound like someone's spoon-feeding you things you like hearing, and doing something totally different behind your back?

But the worst part of this isn't that you're buying this rhetoric and blindly following the people who are spreading it, it's that you're helping them spread it around and pull off this whole gimmick. You've let yourself get so caught up in all the anger and the bluster that you're furthering it. Every time you post one of those articles or deliver yet another rhetorical one-liner, you're helping move people one step further along down that path anger, and hatred, and blind political rage.

But hey, you know what? That's fine. I really don't care at this point. Honestly, I find it funny, because while you're pushing this narrative along with your other super conservative buddies so y'all can try and get this...

... all you're doing is stoking the flames of anger, making sure that more GOP voters sign up to nominate this...

... which is just gonna end up buying us four years of this.

I just hope you finally learn your lesson when it happens.

[PAMFAM10]

 Free Think. Nobody can ever take away your ability to think for yourself. how conservative or liberal would these politicians be claiming to be if it didn't come with the votes. I understand the game they run but they trying to get elected. It's the average joe that bothers me. 

Trump is trump not because of the establishment. Cruz is in the race so why not vote Cruz to show up establishment. That's just a excuses to cover for the fact that the front runner in the GOP is a rich half crazy liberal.

[PAMFAM10]

39 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

No, Bush 41 lost during a recession. It's common for changes of power to take place in the midst of economic hardship - in fact, if there's a single variable you can link major shake-ups in the line-up in Washington to over the last several decades, it's the shape the economy's in. That was the case in 1992, where you can trace the polling data that had Bush 41 ahead of Clinton literally up until the week of the election. Economics drives elections.

So Nixon gave us the EPA. Are you saying we don't need the EPA? And how his presidency ended has nothing to do with the fact that he was elected two landslides that have only been outdone by other Republicans.

And no, Romney didn't lose to the worst president in history. Why? Because...

*NEWSFLASH*: Barack Obama is NOT THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!!!!

Shocking! I know!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Seriously, are you actually so blindly caught up in all the rhetoric that you believe that? Do you really think Obama could compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude? Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? For the love of God, man, come to your senses.

I'm not going to sit here and say that he's been a good president, because he hasn't. It's hard to make the argument that he's been a decent president. But he is not, by any means, the worst in history, and to say so is to exaggerate in the same way that so many pundits do, further driving the polarization and the demonization of the other side that is ripping this country to shreds.

For the last five years, I have watched you make post after post and start thread after thread where you throw out these half-baked articles that masquerade as "journalism" from all these grassroots, far right-wing media organizations that come across normal day-to-day operations that are just part of governing, and think they've stumbled onto the next great clue Barack Obama's plot to take over the world, never bothering to even try to get some kind of opinion from someone with actual experience in governing to add context to whatever it is they're reporting on because all they want to do is jump to conspiratorial conclusions. And do you know why they're doing that?

*NEWSFLASH*: Because They Want To P*ss People Like You Off, So You'll Go To The Polls And Vote For Whoever They Tell You To Vote For

More shock!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Seriously, how do you think we end up with crap like this?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Do you think this is just coincidence? Or do you think this is the tactic of people who have turned phrases like "establishment" and "RINO" into dirty words they can use to slander elected officials who haven't really done anything wrong, but just don't go along with the hard right on every single issue?

Do you actually believe that there's some great benefit to you, or any other average person, if the Republican establishment up and crumbles in the middle of this election? Do you think that's somehow going to make it harder on the Democrats?

Do you actually think the people who are leading you down this path, spewing all this rhetoric and fomenting all this anger, are somehow on your side? Do you think they really have your interests at heart? Or is it really in their interest to take over an entire party and destroy the establishment political players, and they're just using you as a willing dupe?

Let's forget about Donald Trump for a minute and take your conservative messiah, smitty. Ted Cruz. Do you actually think he's as anti-amnesty as he says he is? Do you really believe a guy who...

SPECIFICALLY WORKED FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON THE 2006 IMMIGRATION REFORM PACKAGE THAT INCLUDED AMNESTY

... is now all of the sudden against it? Do you believe a man who...

IS ON VIDEO ADVOCATING FOR A PATH TO LEGALIZED CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE

... is really as anti-immigration as he's telling you he is? Do you believe a man who...

LITERALLY CHANGED HIS VOTE ON AN EXPENSIVE CROP INSURANCE BILL IN THE MIDDLE OF ROLL CALL ON THE SENATE FLOOR BECAUSE HE WAS REMINDED ABOUT THE IOWA PRIMARY

... is really as committed to fiscal conservatism and budget reform as he says he is?

Does that sound like "consistent" conservatism to you? Or does it sound like someone's spoon-feeding you things you like hearing, and doing something totally different behind your back?

But the worst part of this isn't that you're buying this rhetoric and blindly following the people who are spreading it, it's that you're helping them spread it around and pull off this whole gimmick. You've let yourself get so caught up in all the anger and the bluster that you're furthering it. Every time you post one of those articles or deliver yet another rhetorical one-liner, you're helping move people one step further along down that path anger, and hatred, and blind political rage.

But hey, you know what? That's fine. I really don't care at this point. Honestly, I find it funny, because while you're pushing this narrative along with your other super conservative buddies so y'all can try and get this...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

... all you're doing is stoking the flames of anger, making sure that more GOP voters sign up to nominate this...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

... which is just gonna end up buying us four years of this.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I just hope you finally learn your lesson when it happens.

It will still be on Obama, media, low informed voters etc. Or who ever Fox News blame. 

[westend1]

Holy crap, Bamatex!  You put some effort into that.

[smitty]

20 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

No, Bush 41 lost during a recession. It's common for changes of power to take place in the midst of economic hardship - in fact, if there's a single variable you can link major shake-ups in the line-up in Washington to over the last several decades, it's the shape the economy's in. That was the case in 1992, where you can trace the polling data that had Bush 41 ahead of Clinton literally up until the week of the election. Economics drives elections.

So Nixon gave us the EPA. Are you saying we don't need the EPA? And how his presidency ended has nothing to do with the fact that he was elected two landslides that have only been outdone by other Republicans.

And no, Romney didn't lose to the worst president in history. Why? Because...

*NEWSFLASH*: Barack Obama is NOT THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!!!!

Shocking! I know!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Seriously, are you actually so blindly caught up in all the rhetoric that you believe that? Do you really think Obama could compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude? Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? For the love of God, man, come to your senses.

I'm not going to sit here and say that he's been a good president, because he hasn't. It's hard to make the argument that he's been a decent president. But he is not, by any means, the worst in history, and to say so is to exaggerate in the same way that so many pundits do, further driving the polarization and the demonization of the other side that is ripping this country to shreds.

For the last five years, I have watched you make post after post and start thread after thread where you throw out these half-baked articles that masquerade as "journalism" from all these grassroots, far right-wing media organizations that come across normal day-to-day operations that are just part of governing, and think they've stumbled onto the next great clue Barack Obama's plot to take over the world, never bothering to even try to get some kind of opinion from someone with actual experience in governing to add context to whatever it is they're reporting on because all they want to do is jump to conspiratorial conclusions. And do you know why they're doing that?

*NEWSFLASH*: Because They Want To P*ss People Like You Off, So You'll Go To The Polls And Vote For Whoever They Tell You To Vote For

More shock!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Seriously, how do you think we end up with crap like this?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Do you think this is just coincidence? Or do you think this is the tactic of people who have turned phrases like "establishment" and "RINO" into dirty words they can use to slander elected officials who haven't really done anything wrong, but just don't go along with the hard right on every single issue?

Do you actually believe that there's some great benefit to you, or any other average person, if the Republican establishment up and crumbles in the middle of this election? Do you think that's somehow going to make it harder on the Democrats?

Do you actually think the people who are leading you down this path, spewing all this rhetoric and fomenting all this anger, are somehow on your side? Do you think they really have your interests at heart? Or is it really in their interest to take over an entire party and destroy the establishment political players, and they're just using you as a willing dupe?

Let's forget about Donald Trump for a minute and take your conservative messiah, smitty. Ted Cruz. Do you actually think he's as anti-amnesty as he says he is? Do you really believe a guy who...

SPECIFICALLY WORKED FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON THE 2006 IMMIGRATION REFORM PACKAGE THAT INCLUDED AMNESTY

... is now all of the sudden against it? Do you believe a man who...

IS ON VIDEO ADVOCATING FOR A PATH TO LEGALIZED CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE

... is really as anti-immigration as he's telling you he is? Do you believe a man who...

LITERALLY CHANGED HIS VOTE ON AN EXPENSIVE CROP INSURANCE BILL IN THE MIDDLE OF ROLL CALL ON THE SENATE FLOOR BECAUSE HE WAS REMINDED ABOUT THE IOWA PRIMARY

... is really as committed to fiscal conservatism and budget reform as he says he is?

Does that sound like "consistent" conservatism to you? Or does it sound like someone's spoon-feeding you things you like hearing, and doing something totally different behind your back?

But the worst part of this isn't that you're buying this rhetoric and blindly following the people who are spreading it, it's that you're helping them spread it around and pull off this whole gimmick. You've let yourself get so caught up in all the anger and the bluster that you're furthering it. Every time you post one of those articles or deliver yet another rhetorical one-liner, you're helping move people one step further along down that path anger, and hatred, and blind political rage.

But hey, you know what? That's fine. I really don't care at this point. Honestly, I find it funny, because while you're pushing this narrative along with your other super conservative buddies so y'all can try and get this...

... all you're doing is stoking the flames of anger, making sure that more GOP voters sign up to nominate this...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

... which is just gonna end up buying us four years of this.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I just hope you finally learn your lesson when it happens.

WOW!  Bigger is supposed to be better?  Not!  LOL!!  Any way, Carter was the worst President until obama showed up.  Listening to Newt Gingrich I have a better feeling about Trump (but still not totally convinced).  But, there's no doubt that Cruz could beat hillarious.  Again, with Ford, Dole, McCain and Romney, we tried the mushy middle (establisment) and that didn't work. 

[PN-G bamatex]

2 hours ago, westend1 said:

Holy crap, Bamatex!  You put some effort into that.

Most of which was probably wasted.

[nappyroots]

12 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Most of which was probably wasted.

Great post Bamatex

[smitty]

3 hours ago, nappyroots said:

Great post Bamatex

WOW!!  You are the second LIBERAL to praise the post.  Interesting!

[PN-G bamatex]

1 hour ago, smitty said:

WOW!!  You are the second LIBERAL to praise the post.  Interesting!

You mean someone on your own side of the aisle shows some independent thought and it was praised by one or two slovenly liberals!?!?!?!? It must be wrong! He must be a RINO plant here to stop true conservatism! Burn him at the stake!

Come back and respond when you're ready to provide an answer to all the questions I posed in my prior posts. Until then, you're just another political hack willing to say and do anything to blindly advance somebody else's cause.

[smitty]

57 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

You mean someone on your own side of the aisle shows some independent thought and it was praised by one or two slovenly liberals!?!?!?!? It must be wrong! He must be a RINO plant here to stop true conservatism! Burn him at the stake!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Come back and respond when you're ready to provide an answer to all the questions I posed in my prior posts. Until then, you're just another political hack willing to say and do anything to blindly advance somebody else's cause.

LOL!  Out of the mouths of babes!  Again -- when two socialist agree with you here, then that ought to tell you something. 

[PN-G bamatex]

57 minutes ago, smitty said:

LOL!  Out of the mouths of babes!  Again -- when two socialist agree with you here, then that ought to tell you something. 

Socialists!

You hear that, westend? You're a socialist now! You must hate America! Cowabunga, Comrade!

Can't help but notice you're still not answering those questions I posed. What's the matter? Can't think of a good rhetorical one-liner to come back with? Or is calling people "socialist" just the first line of defense in the angry right-wing handbook?

[PAMFAM10]

bamatex ran them off. You should take a bow.

[baddog]

I don't think it is bamatex.

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

bamatex ran them off. You should take a bow.

Just a wild guess but I think bamatex is releasing the same frustration that most Republicans have.  While the Democrats lock step to whatever the party comes up with, the Repubs run the gauntlet of liberal Trump/Christie to conservatives Rubio/Cruz.  And the fact that Obama won a second term was like putting Tabasco in our eyes.  I know I'm frustrated!  And the fact that Hillary is favored to win in Nov is like throwing gasoline on a fire.  United we stand = Dems.  Divided we fall = Repubs.  

[PAMFAM10]

Dems fight even Bernie been outspoken on Obama and the clintons probably still don't get along with Obama. At some point you have to realize your on the same team. Tea party best thing that ever happen to the right. 

[LumRaiderFan]

33 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Dems fight even Bernie been outspoken on Obama and the clintons probably still don't get along with Obama. At some point you have to realize your on the same team. Tea party best thing that ever happen to the right. 

Agree...the GOP, however, doesn't.

[Hagar]

6 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Agree...the GOP, however, doesn't.

And isn't that a prime example of the whole mess!   

[nappyroots]

On March 19, 2016 at 11:46 AM, smitty said:

WOW!!  You are the second LIBERAL to praise the post.  Interesting!

Bamatex calls it like it is, even if its his own party that he must call out. Im not voting for Hillary or Bernie, but I wouldn't vote for Cruz or Trump either. Don't really have a problem with Kasich.

[smitty]

More wrongness from the establishment.  Even in August, the polls had Reagan down 10% to carter.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[smitty]

On 3/20/2016 at 1:23 PM, nappyroots said:

Bamatex calls it like it is, even if its his own party that he must call out. Im not voting for Hillary or Bernie, but I wouldn't vote for Cruz or Trump either. Don't really have a problem with Kasich.

WOW, again, a socialist praising Kasich!  Must give a warm, cozy feeling to those that think/thought Kasich was the answer.   SMH!