Christie endorsement

[PAMFAM10]

No need for link I'm sure everyone heard the news by now. 

Just looking for opinions on the christe endorsement. 

[baddog]

Hoping for a VP nod?

Lends credence to the saying, " If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

[TxHoops]

4 hours ago, baddog said:

Hoping for a VP nod?

Lends credence to the saying, " If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

What I was thinking.  If Trump wins though, Christie would do little, if anything, to garner additional votes in the general election.  Rubio or Kasich would at least go a long way to getting you one of the swing states. 

[Hagar]

4 hours ago, TxHoops said:

What I was thinking.  If Trump wins though, Christie would do little, if anything, to garner additional votes in the general election.  Rubio or Kasich would at least go a long way to getting you one of the swing states. 

Hoops, I'm afraid the IF is looking like a sure thing.  Even with all his foo paws.  I can't come with many senarios that will stop him.  

I agree with your choices for VP.  Hugh assets.  

[RETIREDFAN1]

One more clown in the trump clown car...........

[PAMFAM10]

Who would want to be trump vp I can't see Rubio or Cruz wanting the job under trump. So who do trump go with . 

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Who would want to be trump vp I can't see Rubio or Cruz wanting the job under trump. So who do trump go with . 

Maybe Sen Sessions from Ala who just endorsed him.  The way things are going for him, it doesn't seem to matter.  Almost like the way was paved for him.  

[bullets13]

4 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Who would want to be trump vp I can't see Rubio or Cruz wanting the job under trump. So who do trump go with . 

Let me start by saying that Trump won't beat Clinton.  But hypothetically, if he did, It's still the VP, and if by some miracle Trump does a decent job his VP will be next in line to be the frontrunner during the next election cycle.

[smitty]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

Let me start by saying that Trump won't beat Clinton.  But hypothetically, if he did, It's still the VP, and if by some miracle Trump does a decent job his VP will be next in line to be the frontrunner during the next election cycle.

What is your reasoning as to why concerning the bold/ underlined?

[LumRaiderFan]

15 minutes ago, smitty said:

What is your reasoning as to why concerning the bold/ underlined?

I was wondering the same...bullets must have less confidence in the American voters than even I do.

[bullets13]

52 minutes ago, smitty said:

What is your reasoning as to why concerning the bold/ underlined?

Because he's a bombastic jackass, and there's no way that he's going to win among the middle of the road voters who decide every election.  Even many voters who want a republican in office are going to have a hard time voting for him.  

 

[LumRaiderFan]

25 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Because he's a bombastic jackass, and there's no way that he's going to win among the middle of the road voters who decide every election.  Even many voters who want a republican in office are going to have a hard time voting for him.  

 

So these "middle of the road voters" would rather vote for a crook (possible felon) that caused and then lied about the cause of the death of four of our finest OR a self proclaimed socialist rather than Trump because he is a jackass.

Both of which will, without a doubt, continue us down the path we are on.

You see why I have no confidence in these "moderate voters" ...they vote based on who makes them feel good.

[bullets13]

41 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So these "middle of the road voters" would rather vote for a crook (possible felon) that caused and then ignored the death of four of our finest OR a self proclaimed socialist rather than Trump because he is a jackass.

Both of which will, without a doubt, continue us down the path we are on.

You see why I have no confidence in these "moderate voters" ...they vote based on who makes them feel good.

There are just as many, if not more, reasons to criticize and/or not vote for Trump as there are for Hillary, which is impressive considering he's never held any type of political office (which in itself is a very good reason not to vote for him).  As for your "middle of the road" comments..  You like to gripe because we "vote for whoever makes us feel good." i have a problem with people who'll vote for someone simply because of their party affiliation, no matter what kind of person they've proven to be.  You can gripe all you want about us, but voters such as myself actually taking the time to choose a candidate based on merit, standing, and stances is a good thing for our country, even if isn't a good thing for the ultra conservative in the GOP who'd like things to go back to the way they were 40 years ago.   As tough as it is to stomach, this isn't the same country it was 40 years ago, and even though you, and people like you, think that everyone who doesn't believe in strict conservatism is bad for the country, the fact of the matter is that your viewpoints are no longer held in the majority.  Moderates are not going to overlook those conservative (and, in some cases,  discriminatory) views and vote for a guy like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, even if they want a candidate who will curb spending. You can continue to believe that others should change and conform to your beliefs, but it's simply not going to happen.  Ultraconservative GOP ideologies will always have strongholds, but those strongholds are dwindling, and younger generations are less and less conservative.  Strict moral beliefs  are no longer powerful enough to carry a presidency, and that's not really that recent a development.  Hell, if Jeb hadn't given his brother the presidency in 2000 we wouldn't have seen a republican in the oval office in the last 25 years, and i highly doubt that this will change this election cycle.  Because as ineffective as Obama has been, and even though he's been hell on our deficit and bad for our economy, things aren't nearly as bad as all of you guys predicted they would be by now.   In a sense, by predicting that he'd run our country completely into the ground and bring about an armageddon, Republicans have made Obama's presidency a success of sorts because he hasn't done that.  When he was supposed to bring about the end of our country, it doesn't really seem like a big deal that we had a slow economic recovery after the recession he inherited.  So, pairing Obama's failure to bring about the rapture like many conservatives predicted, combined with the fact neither Trump nor Cruz is appealing to anyone outside of the far right, and the fact that Hillary will carry the liberal, african american, and female vote, means we're likely in for 8 more years of democratic leadership.  The republican party MUST adjust their ideologies towards more centric stances, and provide a palatable candidate for the presidency if they want to win it back anytime soon.  That's just the way it is.  

[smitty]

52 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Because he's a bombastic jackass, and there's no way that he's going to win among the middle of the road voters who decide every election.  Even many voters who want a republican in office are going to have a hard time voting for him.  

 

You may right.  That's the conventional wisdom.  Poll I saw was the Cruz and Rubio would beat Hillarious but not Trump.  All the more reason to vote for Cruz or Rubio. 

[LumRaiderFan]

17 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

There are just as many, if not more, reasons to criticize and/or not vote for Trump as there are for Hillary, which is impressive considering he's never held any type of political office (which in itself is a very good reason not to vote for him).  As for your "middle of the road" comments..  You like to gripe because we "vote for whoever makes us feel good." i have a problem with people who'll vote for someone simply because of their party affiliation, no matter what kind of person they've proven to be.  You can gripe all you want about us, but voters such as myself actually taking the time to choose a candidate based on merit, standing, and stances is a good thing for our country, even if isn't a good thing for the ultra conservative in the GOP who'd like things to go back to the way they were 40 years ago.   As tough as it is to stomach, this isn't the same country it was 40 years ago, and even though you, and people like you, think that everyone who doesn't believe in strict conservatism is bad for the country, the fact of the matter is that your viewpoints are no longer held in the majority.  Moderates are not going to overlook those conservative (and, in some cases,  discriminatory) views and vote for a guy like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, even if they want a candidate who will curb spending. You can continue to believe that others should change and conform to your beliefs, but it's simply not going to happen.  Ultraconservative GOP ideologies will always have strongholds, but those strongholds are dwindling, and younger generations are less and less conservative.  Strict moral beliefs  are no longer powerful enough to carry a presidency, and that's not really that recent a development.  Hell, if Jeb hadn't given his brother the presidency in 2000 we wouldn't have seen a republican in the oval office in the last 25 years, and i highly doubt that this will change this election cycle.  Because as ineffective as Obama has been, and even though he's been hell on our deficit and bad for our economy, things aren't nearly as bad as all of you guys predicted they would be by now.   In a sense, by predicting that he'd run our country completely into the ground and bring about an armageddon, Republicans have made Obama's presidency a success of sorts because he hasn't done that.  When he was supposed to bring about the end of our country, it doesn't really seem like a big deal that we had a slow economic recovery after the recession he inherited.  So, pairing Obama's failure to bring about the rapture like many conservatives predicted, combined with the fact neither Trump nor Cruz is appealing to anyone outside of the far right, and the fact that Hillary will carry the liberal, african american, and female vote, means we're likely in for 8 more years of democratic leadership.  The republican party MUST adjust their ideologies towards more centric stances, and provide a palatable candidate for the presidency if they want to win it back anytime soon.  That's just the way it is.  

lol...you coudn't be more wrong about me...if a Democrat ever stepped forward and said I want to cut spending, entitlement programs, let the states handle all matters not called for in the Constitution, I would vote for them in a heartbeat.

...but you will never hear a Democrat say that.  So that's the reason I vote for Republicans...they at least kind of line up with my beliefs.

So let me tell you how it is...if we continue to refuse to adopt conservative fiscal policies (set forth by conservative candidates) and continue down the road you moderates and progressives want, none of this will matter and this country will be broke.

I doubt there will be as much concern from moderates about whether or not our leader is a bombastic jackass when they are standing in a bread line.

[smitty]

18 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

There are just as many, if not more, reasons to criticize and/or not vote for Trump as there are for Hillary, which is impressive considering he's never held any type of political office (which in itself is a very good reason not to vote for him).  As for your "middle of the road" comments..  You like to gripe because we "vote for whoever makes us feel good." i have a problem with people who'll vote for someone simply because of their party affiliation, no matter what kind of person they've proven to be.  You can gripe all you want about us, but voters such as myself actually taking the time to choose a candidate based on merit, standing, and stances is a good thing for our country, even if isn't a good thing for the ultra conservative in the GOP who'd like things to go back to the way they were 40 years ago.   As tough as it is to stomach, this isn't the same country it was 40 years ago, and even though you, and people like you, think that everyone who doesn't believe in strict conservatism is bad for the country, the fact of the matter is that your viewpoints are no longer held in the majority.  Moderates are not going to overlook those conservative (and, in some cases,  discriminatory) views and vote for a guy like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, even if they want a candidate who will curb spending. You can continue to believe that others should change and conform to your beliefs, but it's simply not going to happen.  Ultraconservative GOP ideologies will always have strongholds, but those strongholds are dwindling, and younger generations are less and less conservative.  Strict moral beliefs  are no longer powerful enough to carry a presidency, and that's not really that recent a development.  Hell, if Jeb hadn't given his brother the presidency in 2000 we wouldn't have seen a republican in the oval office in the last 25 years, and i highly doubt that this will change this election cycle.  Because as ineffective as Obama has been, and even though he's been hell on our deficit and bad for our economy, things aren't nearly as bad as all of you guys predicted they would be by now.   In a sense, by predicting that he'd run our country completely into the ground and bring about an armageddon, Republicans have made Obama's presidency a success of sorts because he hasn't done that.  When he was supposed to bring about the end of our country, it doesn't really seem like a big deal that we had a slow economic recovery after the recession he inherited.  So, pairing Obama's failure to bring about the rapture like many conservatives predicted, combined with the fact neither Trump nor Cruz is appealing to anyone outside of the far right, and the fact that Hillary will carry the liberal, african american, and female vote, means we're likely in for 8 more years of democratic leadership.  The republican party MUST adjust their ideologies towards more centric stances, and provide a palatable candidate for the presidency if they want to win it back anytime soon.  That's just the way it is.  

How about this:  Instead of a Capitalist, Constitution loving American like Cruz, or anyone on the Right, changing to pander to some group that doesn't much believe in what I stated, how about those groups changing and start believing what's right (uh, no pun intended) about America?  You know, again:  The Constitution and Capitalism.  bullets, have you ever read the 10th Amendment?  If not, read it tell this forum what you see.

[bullets13]

38 minutes ago, smitty said:

You may right.  That's the conventional wisdom.  Poll I saw was the Cruz and Rubio would beat Hillarious but not Trump.  All the more reason to vote for Cruz or Rubio. 

On this, you and i can agree.

[bullets13]

35 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol...you coudn't be more wrong about me...if a Democrat ever stepped forward and said I want to cut spending, entitlement programs, let the states handle all matters not called for in the Constitution, I would vote for them in a heartbeat.

...but you will never hear a Democrat say that.  So that's the reason I vote for Republicans...they at least kind of line up with my beliefs.

So let me tell you how it is...if we continue to refuse to adopt conservative fiscal policies (set forth by conservative candidates) and continue down the road you moderates and progressives want, none of this will matter and this country will be broke.

I doubt there will be as much concern from moderates about whether or not our leader is a bombastic jackass when they are standing in a bread line.

so let me tell you how it is (again)... if conservatives continue to refuse to adopt moderate social policies, and continue down the road that ultra conservatives want, they'll never get a chance to get in a place of leadership to change fiscal policy.  The fact that the right can't get back into the White House, but blames the left for it instead of looking at and adjusting their ideologies is exactly why the right is going to continue to struggle to get  back into the white house.  

I agree with you that we need fiscal conservative policies, by the way.  I just disagree that the whole country should be expected to conform to conservative social policy to get them, and it's not going to happen.  So republicans can either keep losing the presidential election and use it as a reason to complain about the other side and the moderates, or they can wake up and make themselves a party that's appealing to people other than the 50+ white american demographic.  

[LumRaiderFan]

15 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

so let me tell you how it is (again)... if conservatives continue to refuse to adopt moderate social policies, and continue down the road that ultra conservatives want, they'll never get a chance to get in a place of leadership to change fiscal policy.  The fact that the right can't get back into the White House, but blames the left for it instead of looking at and adjusting their ideologies is exactly why the right is going to continue to struggle to get  back into the white house.  

I agree with you that we need fiscal conservative policies, by the way.  I just disagree that the whole country should be expected to conform to conservative social policy to get them, and it's not going to happen.  So republicans can either keep losing the presidential election and use it as a reason to complain about the other side and the moderates, or they can wake up and make themselves a party that's appealing to people other than the 50+ white american demographic.  

I don't want politicians to adopt any social policies at the federal level...or be involved in funding any social programs.  

I know that is radical but it's in the 10th Amendment that Smitty wants you to read.

Conservative fiscal policy and liberal social policy at the federal level can't co-exist anyway.

If we got back to the Constitution, it wouldn't matter what the President-elect thought about social issues.

There you go...not how it is, but how it should be.

[TxHoops]

I think Trump could beat Hillary.  A lot of the polling suggests he has the best shot.  Problem is, he's somewhat of a ticking time bomb and could implode at any time.  I also think Rubio has a ton of upside and could win.  Not saying either would beat her, but I definitely wouldn't say they couldn't.  

[stevenash]

Bullets- if the conservatives are so far out of touch, why is it that they control the House, the Senate, the majority of governorships, and the majority of state legislatures?

[PAMFAM10]

I think Hillary will dance circles around trump in the presidential debates. He won't be allowed to just say things he'll really have to start going into details on his ideas rather than just saying trust me I'll make America great. low energy and other insults will not doom Hillary like jeb and others. He also won't receive all the media attention advantage he has over the GOP. 

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Bullets- if the conservatives are so far out of touch, why is it that they control the House, the Senate, the majority of governorships, and the majority of state legislatures?

they took over from the backlash over obamacare, but that's not going to be enough to win the presidency because of the large amount of electoral college votes awarded to Cali and NY, combined with the GOP's inability to win the swing states for the better part of 25 years.  We'll see what happens.  I really wish the presidency was done by popular vote.  A democrat in Texas or a republican in California might as well stay home on Election Day.  Their votes essentially don't matter.

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

I think Trump could beat Hillary.  A lot of the polling suggests he has the best shot.  Problem is, he's somewhat of a ticking time bomb and could implode at any time.  I also think Rubio has a ton of upside and could win.  Not saying either would beat her, but I definitely wouldn't say they couldn't.  

I think Rubio has the best shot.  Trump has made it this far with vague allusions to "plans", and by insulting his opponents.  When it comes to winning voters in the swing states, it's going to take a lot more than that 

[bullets13]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I don't want politicians to adopt any social policies at the federal level...or be involved in funding any social programs.  

I know that is radical but it's in the 10th Amendment that Smitty wants you to read.

Conservative fiscal policy and liberal social policy at the federal level can't co-exist anyway.

If we got back to the Constitution, it wouldn't matter what the President-elect thought about social issues.

There you go...not how it is, but how it should be.

I pretty much agree with you here, but as you said, it's not how it is.