I'm pulling for Trump simply because I believe it's time to blow the whole thing up. It's timne for revolution, and this is the way we accomplish it in America, with our vote, whether at the ballot box or with our pocket books. The more the GOP establishment hates Trump, the better I like him. I believe the Dem establishment is underestimating the mood of the people that constitute their base, just as the GOP has. A socialist is giving an established dem a good run, and still winning primaries at this point in the race. That is so significant. No matter what he says, Trump will be limited in what he can actually do, just like any other president by our system of checks and balances. But wht the Trump "movement", and Sanders also, represent about where the people of the United States are with opur cureent political system is remarkable. The times they are a changin'.
This is the only intelligent argument I've heard for supporting Trump. I agree that the whole thing needs to be blown up and for the last few elections I've voted 3rd party for that reason. But maybe a vote for Trump would be more effective. I'll have to ponder that. They say minds are never changed in the WP so I'll probably stick with the 3rd party strategy, but you never know.
Thanks for not saying you support Trump because he represents the people and speaks the truth.
Thanks for not saying you support Trump because he represents the people and speaks the truth.
Not the speaks the truth part, but the representing the people part, isn't it sort of what he said ?
And not just Mr. Mackenzie, but if the "people" are disgusted and want to shake the whole thing up, that is a large group that Trump represents, is it not ?
Thanks for not saying you support Trump because he represents the people and speaks the truth.
Not the speaks the truth part, but the representing the people part, isn't it sort of what he said ?
And not just Mr. Mackenzie, but if the "people" are disgusted and want to shake the whole thing up, that is a large group that Trump represents, is it not ?
I'll leave Doug to explain what he meant, but I took it to mean simply that a Trump presidency would be so upsetting to our established political system that it would be forced to reset. That is different than saying Trump represents the people on issues.
Trump represents nobody except for himself. People that think he's running to be POTUS to serve anything other than his own self interests are being played for fools, IMO.
OK, leave Doug out of it.
And you just added the part about "on issues."
I'm saying Trump represents a large group of people that are disgusted and upset with "the system" and yes, want to shake it all up.
OK, leave Doug out of it.
And you just added the part about "on issues."
I'm saying Trump represents a large group of people that are disgusted and upset with "the system" and yes, want to shake it all up.
OK, then we have no arguement. Sorry I wasn't clear on "issues".
I'm saying Trump represents a large group of people that are disgusted and upset with "the system" and yes, want to shake it all up.
As does Bernie Sanders.
Top reason Americans will vote for Trump: 'To stop Clinton'
Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.
The US presidential election may turn out to be one of the world's biggest un-popularity contests. Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.
The results reflect a deepening ideological divide in the United States, where people are becoming increasingly fearful of the opposing party, a feeling worsened by the likely matchup between the New York real estate tycoon and the former first lady, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. "This phenomenon is called negative partisanship," Sabato said. "If we were trying to maximize the effect, we couldn't have found better nominees than Trump and Clinton."
Trump has won passionate supporters and vitriolic detractors for his blunt talk and hardline proposals, including his call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, his vow to force Mexico to pay for a border wall, and his promise to renegotiate international trade deals. Former Secretary of State Clinton's appeal to voters seeking continuity with President Barack Obama's policies, has won her a decisive lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but finds strong opponents among those disillusioned by what they see as lack of progress during Obama's tenure.
The poll asked likely voters about the primary motivation driving their support of either Trump or Clinton heading into the general election on Nov. 8. About 47 percent of Trump supporters said they backed him primarily because they don't want Clinton to win. Another 43 percent said their primary motivation was a liking for Trump's political positions, while 6 percent said they liked him personally. Similar responses prevailed among Clinton supporters. About 46 percent said they would vote for her mostly because they don’t want to see a Trump presidency, while 40 percent said they agreed with her political positions, and 11 percent said they liked her personally. The April 29-May 5 poll included 469 likely Trump voters and 599 likely Clinton voters. It has a credibility interval of 5 percentage points. (For results, click tmsnrt.rs/1TLCbqX )
To be sure, voters’ opinions could change over the next several months. Candidates will be feted at party conventions, will square off in a series of national debates, and will be targeted by millions of dollars worth of advertisements. But the negative atmosphere is likely to reign, says Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University professor who has studied the rise of negative partisanship in America. Both campaigns probably will decide their best strategy is to work even harder to vilify each other, he said. "It’s going to get very, very negative," he added. That would play into a longer-term trend. A 2014 study by Pew Research Center found that Democrats and Republicans have shown increasingly negative views toward each other over the past few decades. In 2014 more than a quarter of Democrats, and more than a third of Republicans, viewed the opposition as "a threat to the nation’s well-being." Barbara Monson, 59, a Republican from Murray, Utah, is among them. "No matter who the Republican (nominee) is, I would have voted for him," poll respondent Monson said of her support for Trump. "It’s never going to be Clinton. Never." Jo-Anne Michaud, 69, an independent voter from Abingdon, Maryland, told Reuters she would try to keep an open mind. Although she has voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past, she feels repelled by Trump. "I used to like the guy when I watched his show," Michaud said. "But I just hate the way he talks now. I don’t think he’s a nice person deep down inside."
Top reason Americans will vote for Trump: 'To stop Clinton'
I am ambivalent about Clinton, but believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that she's way less dangerous and would do far less damage than Trump. Not trying to convince you or anyone else of that and I don't want to be perceived as supporting her (I am not), but it is what I believe and I have yet to have anyone make what to me is a cogent, fact-based argument to the contrary. As of now, I'll be looking beyond Clinton and Trump for someone to support in November.
[Edited on 5/6/2016 by gondicar]
Try to be honest Hillary supporters, do you just love her stance on issues so much or do you just want to defeat Trump ?
Try to be honest Hillary supporters, do you just love her stance on issues so much or do you just want to defeat Trump ?
I believe we, as a nation, MUST defeat Trump. But I have a very hard time supporting Hillary just for that purpose, hence my previous post.
Try to be honest Hillary supporters, do you just love her stance on issues so much or do you just want to defeat Trump ?
In terms of national security, she's a far better choice. Dick Cheney in a pantsuit.
Economics, well, if she adopts policies similar to those that her husband had in the 90s, I'm good with that.
I'm a classic political nerd. I believe in our system. I think the electorate has dangerously moved to just becoming two rival fanbases, and in the process we have stopped asking for anything tangible from our elected leaders. Changes that need to happen need to happen at more granular levels than just who is President.
But, let's be totally honest. Issues mean less than ever. The left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative battle has moved deeply into citizens openly judging how other citizens live their lives. It's been slowly moving this way for quite a while and it keeps going deeper. There's examples all over the place. We're waaaaay past "You have your views, I have mine, I respect your opinion, etc." Dem days is over.
I'm pulling for Trump simply because I believe it's time to blow the whole thing up. It's timne for revolution, and this is the way we accomplish it in America, with our vote, whether at the ballot box or with our pocket books. The more the GOP establishment hates Trump, the better I like him. I believe the Dem establishment is underestimating the mood of the people that constitute their base, just as the GOP has. A socialist is giving an established dem a good run, and still winning primaries at this point in the race. That is so significant. No matter what he says, Trump will be limited in what he can actually do, just like any other president by our system of checks and balances. But wht the Trump "movement", and Sanders also, represent about where the people of the United States are with opur cureent political system is remarkable. The times they are a changin'.
No one President is going to blow enough of any of it up to make any tangible change unless you can get a vast (like, 80% buy in on any one issue) consensus within the citizenry. Leaders can only lead those who choose to be led. A Red placing faith in A Blue or vice versa, ain't gonna happen. The era of transcendent leadership is over and has been for quite a while.
The GOP establishment hates Trump at the moment. So what?
Who here thinks that any significant number of Republicans/conservatives, come November 8th, are gonna go into a booth and push the Hillary button instead of the Trump button? C'mon now.
Donald was quite laudatory toward Ted Cruz after Cruz dropped out -- wonder if that was some sort of subtle "olive branch" toward a possible VP nomination, thus pulling together all factions of the GOP...
Hillary? Truthfully she has a vice president -- Bill. What better resource could there possibly be -- as an ex-president he's kept up to speed on everything anyway
they say pillow talk can solve the world's problems -- if that's the case I'll vote for her 😮 -- -- maybe Bernie will be her VP
Donald was quite laudatory toward Ted Cruz after Cruz dropped out -- wonder if that was some sort of subtle "olive branch" toward a possible VP nomination, thus pulling together all factions of the GOP...
Hillary? Truthfully she has a vice president -- Bill. What better resource could there possibly be -- as an ex-president he's kept up to speed on everything anyway
they say pillow talk can solve the world's problems -- if that's the case I'll vote for her 😮 -- -- maybe Bernie will be her VP
Nothing's worse than the primaries. Everyone will pivot to the lovefest soon enough, it's political tradition.
I'll leave Doug to explain what he meant, but I took it to mean simply that a Trump presidency would be so upsetting to our established political system that it would be forced to reset. That is different than saying Trump represents the people on issues.
Exactly.
I'm saying Trump represents a large group of people that are disgusted and upset with "the system" and yes, want to shake it all up.
As does Bernie Sanders.
Exactly. I'd love a Trump-Sanders ticket! 
I'm saying Trump represents a large group of people that are disgusted and upset with "the system" and yes, want to shake it all up.
As does Bernie Sanders.
Exactly. I'd love a Trump-Sanders ticket!
As long as we're dreaming I'd like to see Bernie launch an independent run and beat both Hillary and Trump. Wouldn't that be sweet? Talk about shaking up the system.
I can't wait to see how disappointed all his dysfunctional supporters will be after he either goes back on his words, or gets blocked by Democrats, much like Obama has. Because, surely everyone now realizes that extremists on either side of aisle are rendered ineffective when their opposition blocks their moves at every turn. All of these disturbed individuals are screwing themselves and they don't even know it! They were the ones who invented the block, yet they can't see that it's about to happen to Trump if he wins.
Depends on the legislation being blocked. Blocking initiatives that are popular with the American people
can be a dangerous proposition. With Obama as President, the GOP hasn't had that problem.
Yes, who needed a jobs bill or infrastructure improvements anyway.................
Yes, who needed a jobs bill or infrastructure improvements anyway.................
You forgetting about the Obama Stimulus?
All that "blocking" really hurt the GOP. They got punished by the voters by winning two straight landslides.
All that "blocking" really hurt the GOP. They got punished by the voters by winning two straight landslides.
Two big questions follow:
How many GOP candidates running in down ballot races this fall will run on Trump's coattail?
How many GOP candidates will Trump ruin?
The implosion of the republican party sure is great entertainment!
After Ryan meets with Trump next week, will they come out holding hands & Ryan sing praises?
I'm pulling for Trump simply because I believe it's time to blow the whole thing up. It's timne for revolution, and this is the way we accomplish it in America, with our vote, whether at the ballot box or with our pocket books. The more the GOP establishment hates Trump, the better I like him. I believe the Dem establishment is underestimating the mood of the people that constitute their base, just as the GOP has. A socialist is giving an established dem a good run, and still winning primaries at this point in the race. That is so significant. No matter what he says, Trump will be limited in what he can actually do, just like any other president by our system of checks and balances. But wht the Trump "movement", and Sanders also, represent about where the people of the United States are with opur cureent political system is remarkable. The times they are a changin'.
That is a frightening position. "Blowing things up" is what everyone should fear. Terrorism. Trump hands every anti-American individual or group that possibility on a Tiffany sterling silver platter with his ignorant arrogant rhetoric.
Trump doesn't want to be president. He wants to win the presidential race. He's "a winner" and this is the biggest political prize.
Where will we all be when he gets bored - and he will - when the cameras aren't rolling?
All that "blocking" really hurt the GOP. They got punished by the voters by winning two straight landslides.
The purpose of blocking shouldn't be about hurting a political party, it should be about whether the inaction affected the people positively or negatively. Nobody can know for sure whether outcomes will be positive or negative, but we all know 100% that inaction leads to decay.
Since you believe the American people didn't want Obama's policies anyway, one would assume from that logic that a block on building the wall or banning Muslims would cause a public backlash?
All that "blocking" really hurt the GOP. They got punished by the voters by winning two straight landslides.
The purpose of blocking shouldn't be about hurting a political party, it should be about whether the inaction affected the people positively or negatively. Nobody can know for sure whether outcomes will be positive or negative, but we all know 100% that inaction leads to decay.
Since you believe the American people didn't want Obama's policies anyway, one would assume from that logic that a block on building the wall or banning Muslims would cause a public backlash?
If it's seen as sour grapes or some kind of payback and the policies are not unpopular, blocking will likely blow up in their faces.
All that "blocking" really hurt the GOP. They got punished by the voters by winning two straight landslides.
The purpose of blocking shouldn't be about hurting a political party, it should be about whether the inaction affected the people positively or negatively. Nobody can know for sure whether outcomes will be positive or negative, but we all know 100% that inaction leads to decay.
Since you believe the American people didn't want Obama's policies anyway, one would assume from that logic that a block on building the wall or banning Muslims would cause a public backlash?
If it's seen as sour grapes or some kind of payback and the policies are not unpopular, blocking will likely blow up in their faces.
But you've told us over and over that is how gov't is supposed to work, so why would you now say it will blow up in their faces when they are just doing what they are supposed to do?
[Edited on 5/10/2016 by gondicar]
The purpose of blocking shouldn't be about hurting a political party, it should be about whether the inaction affected the people positively or negatively. Nobody can know for sure whether outcomes will be positive or negative, but we all know 100% that inaction leads to decay.
Since you believe the American people didn't want Obama's policies anyway, one would assume from that logic that a block on building the wall or banning Muslims would cause a public backlash?
If it's seen as sour grapes or some kind of payback and the policies are not unpopular, blocking will likely blow up in their faces.
But you've told us over and over that is how gov't is supposed to work, so why would you now say it will blow up in their faces when they are just doing what they are supposed to do
[Edited on 5/10/2016 by gondicar]
Actually I never once said that. I have said that the government is designed for gridlock, but read into it what you will. I stand by that comment 100%. If Democrats start winning elections in droves for the purpose of blocking Trump then so be it. They should stand by their campaign promises and do what they were elected to do. Let's see if that happens.
The purpose of blocking shouldn't be about hurting a political party, it should be about whether the inaction affected the people positively or negatively. Nobody can know for sure whether outcomes will be positive or negative, but we all know 100% that inaction leads to decay.
Since you believe the American people didn't want Obama's policies anyway, one would assume from that logic that a block on building the wall or banning Muslims would cause a public backlash?
If it's seen as sour grapes or some kind of payback and the policies are not unpopular, blocking will likely blow up in their faces.
But you've told us over and over that is how gov't is supposed to work, so why would you now say it will blow up in their faces when they are just doing what they are supposed to do
[Edited on 5/10/2016 by gondicar]
Actually I never once said that. I have said that the government is designed for gridlock, but read into it what you will. I stand by that comment 100%. If Democrats start winning elections in droves for the purpose of blocking Trump then so be it. They should stand by their campaign promises and do what they were elected to do. Let's see if that happens.
You said "designed for gridlock" and I said you said "[blocking] is how gov't is supposed to work". Same thing from where I sit. And you've said over and over again that the GOP is just doing their jobs, i.e. what they were elected to do, by blocking Obama at every turn. You are actually going to deny that? Wow. No one has won anything yet in 2016 and you're already calling out the dems for doing exactly what you have been praising the GOP for...I guess I would call that preemptive hypocrisy.
