Trump is KILLING the Republican chances for Presidency

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Maverick1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Maverick1
Well, yeah, he could kill it.

On the other hand, he just might win the damned thing.

He might? How do you figure that? Your hopes and desires?

More likely the plain fact that he will have no real competition.

Can ANY Repub beat him? I doubt it. And so do the latest polls.

Biden or Clinton? Gimme a break. Many slam those they assume might vote for Trump, but what kind of people would really and truly vote for the hair-sniffing gaffe machine or the Arkansas mafia-queen herself?

And Sanders? Yeah, no. He can't even hang with Hillary.He's the flavor of the week and will be the answer to a trivia question within five years ... "Which briefly internet -popular presidential hopeful identified as a socialist in the 2016 campaign?"

Meanwhile, Trump is appealing to more and more Americans, and yes, that will include the jobless and suffering black vote, being The demographic that most often competes with illegals for jobs.

Despite the fevered wishes and lame proclamations of the establishment, Trump is very very electable, in my opinion.

Trump may very well be able to capture the GOP nomination but, I'd say he has a farts chance in a hurricane of capturing the White House.

Trump is used to having dictatorial authority over decisions affecting his businesses and he doesn't know the first thing about how to garner the support of legislators required in order to get anything accomplished in government and the only ones who don't realize this fact are the willfully ignorant.

Especially after witnessing, over the last 6 1/2 yrs, just how dysfunctional our government can be when one party decides to employ obstructionism as policy.

Trump's business successes can be attributed to two primary business tactics.

The first one being his admitted use of bribery, (political donations) to get favors from legislators in all branches of government.

The second one being the use of threats of unlimited law suits to silence anyone who opposes him.

While I'll agree that there are many who, blinded by their hatred, don't see this reality, IMO it's both naive and somewhat insulting to the minority communities to infer that a majority of their demographic will somehow buy into his trash talk.

If I were you, I'd keep my eye on Bernie Sanders who actually describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist," which is actually a pretty good description of how our society is supposed to work.

He's not a "Dictatorial Socalist," which is the portrayal that many on the right are attempting to label him with.

I think this election is going to turn out to be the big inevitable battle that's been brewing between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wallstreet movement, with the TP backing Trump and OW backing Bernie.

I'm betting OW wins with Bernie.

I can see the image now. A picture of trump with a caption of him telling his apprentice lady " you'd look better on your knees" an image of an ows protestor taking a dump on a cop car. Your choice.....

Problem is, no one on the left is trying to elect the protester who crapped on the cop car.

Kind of a false comparison, wouldn't you say?

Not when you say Bernie backed by ows and trump backed by tp. You tend to associate with who has similar views, false compirson? Not at all.

Doesn't really surprise me that you don't see the difference. Let me spell it out for you.

Trump is the one actually saying the woman would look better on her knees and his supporters like it.

Bernie is not the one who crapped on the cop car.

The one guy who did crap on the cop car is not representative of the entire OW movement and I doubt that the OWM or Bernie approve of his actions.

In a nutshell, you're trying to compare the spokesman for one movement to the actions of a single protester in another.

The OWM as a whole, has never supported crapping on cop cars, but the TPM is pretty much in favor of every idiotic idea Trump has expressed and that's why he's their chosen one.

As while that may make you feel better to say to prove yourself right , in this day and age you are judged by who you associate with and who associates with you, especially in politics and we see it everyday. We see it everyday this person did thid or was associated with this. He is now associated with Obama...this means Obama is xyz. On the group level. This Christian did this or said this...all Christians or Muslims or any grpup are now xyz. So while it felt good to write you must admit even privately that while not right, association is a reflection of the whole and people will make entire assumptions based on it.

This isn't about guilt by association, if anything it's just the opposite. Something more akin to association by guilt.

Tea Partiers are associating with Trump because they're guilty of holding the same bigoted views that he does.

Bernie didn't crap on any cars and no one is supporting his campaign because someone else did, but then it doesn't surprise me that the only thing some people got out of the OWM was a guy crapping on a police car.

Some people?

Bigoted?????

Every social/political/religious group and counter group in America is a bunch of bigots. selective labeling is funny

big·ot·ed
ˈbiɡədəd/
adjective
having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

a reply to: Cuervo

Hell, I'd probably vote for the steaming turd he left behind before I'd vote for Trump.

Just kidding.

Actually, I'd write in Bernie Sanders.

originally posted by: angus1745

Illegals will NOT be able to vote in the election next year. Citizenship is required. Not even permanent residents can vote. The polls can say whatever numbers and opinions they like. They do not reflect the true voting base on the actual election day.

Just sayin.

Correct, Illegal Immigrants do not vote, but Hispanic Americans do and they have Hispanic roots...And Trump has described them as "rapists and Murderers" and unapologetically encouraged racism toward Hispanics...Illegal and Legal...1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. generation Hispanic Americans...Hell, he had his security eject the Univision anchor from his news conference.

Perhaps I need to repeat it again....

Regardless of who the GOP sends out as their standard bearer...Trump has alienated minorities, not just Latinos, and most importantly, WOMEN...without their support the Republicans don't stand a chance and are SOL. White old men just don't cut the mustard and the swaggering, macho, tough guy, wannabee's, young men supporters don't vote anyway.

unless, as I suspect, Jeb will be placed in the WH....remember hanging chad in 2000 and Bush was given the presidency by a judicial selection. I suspect it will happen again, regardless of the vote.

The pattern is apparent for those old enough or aware enough to see it.

Enjoy your devoteeism toward Trump. I doubt if he will even be around for very much longer. The Bush dynasty = CIA don't forget.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


BTW - He is not running...He has his hand out..

He is waiting for the pay-off to drop out of the race.

The GOP, namely Jeb, is trying to figure how and how much..

Likely an arms length Real-Estate deal in Florida where both Jeb and Trump are big players in the Commercial Development space.

a reply to: olaru12

Bush or Clinton pick your poison.

originally posted by: olaru12
Perhaps I need to repeat it again....

Regardless of who the GOP sends out as their standard bearer...Trump has alienated minorities, not just Latinos, and most importantly, WOMEN...without their support the Republicans don't stand a chance and are SOL. White old men just don't cut the mustard.

Yes...It's like Trump is doing it on purpose...Pandering to the GOP base while dooming his chances of a general election by saying insane crap.

He has his hand out...he is in it for a pay-off to drop out..

originally posted by: olaru12
Perhaps I need to repeat it again....

Regardless of who the GOP sends out as their standard bearer...Trump has alienated minorities, not just Latinos, and most importantly, WOMEN...without their support the Republicans don't stand a chance and are SOL.

unless, as I suspect, Jeb will be placed in the WH....remember hanging chad in 2000 and Bush was given the presidency by a judicial selection. I suspect it will happen again, regardless of the vote.

Did you see all the latest polls ?

Trump is dominating. It's not even close.

I would rather listen to a washing machine than to Jeb.

Trump has the slogan" Make America Great Again".

"Hope and Change" didn't pan out to well.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Maverick1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Maverick1
Well, yeah, he could kill it.

On the other hand, he just might win the damned thing.

He might? How do you figure that? Your hopes and desires?

More likely the plain fact that he will have no real competition.

Can ANY Repub beat him? I doubt it. And so do the latest polls.

Biden or Clinton? Gimme a break. Many slam those they assume might vote for Trump, but what kind of people would really and truly vote for the hair-sniffing gaffe machine or the Arkansas mafia-queen herself?

And Sanders? Yeah, no. He can't even hang with Hillary.He's the flavor of the week and will be the answer to a trivia question within five years ... "Which briefly internet -popular presidential hopeful identified as a socialist in the 2016 campaign?"

Meanwhile, Trump is appealing to more and more Americans, and yes, that will include the jobless and suffering black vote, being The demographic that most often competes with illegals for jobs.

Despite the fevered wishes and lame proclamations of the establishment, Trump is very very electable, in my opinion.

Trump may very well be able to capture the GOP nomination but, I'd say he has a farts chance in a hurricane of capturing the White House.

Trump is used to having dictatorial authority over decisions affecting his businesses and he doesn't know the first thing about how to garner the support of legislators required in order to get anything accomplished in government and the only ones who don't realize this fact are the willfully ignorant.

Especially after witnessing, over the last 6 1/2 yrs, just how dysfunctional our government can be when one party decides to employ obstructionism as policy.

Trump's business successes can be attributed to two primary business tactics.

The first one being his admitted use of bribery, (political donations) to get favors from legislators in all branches of government.

The second one being the use of threats of unlimited law suits to silence anyone who opposes him.

While I'll agree that there are many who, blinded by their hatred, don't see this reality, IMO it's both naive and somewhat insulting to the minority communities to infer that a majority of their demographic will somehow buy into his trash talk.

If I were you, I'd keep my eye on Bernie Sanders who actually describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist," which is actually a pretty good description of how our society is supposed to work.

He's not a "Dictatorial Socalist," which is the portrayal that many on the right are attempting to label him with.

I think this election is going to turn out to be the big inevitable battle that's been brewing between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wallstreet movement, with the TP backing Trump and OW backing Bernie.

I'm betting OW wins with Bernie.

I can see the image now. A picture of trump with a caption of him telling his apprentice lady " you'd look better on your knees" an image of an ows protestor taking a dump on a cop car. Your choice.....

Problem is, no one on the left is trying to elect the protester who crapped on the cop car.

Kind of a false comparison, wouldn't you say?

Not when you say Bernie backed by ows and trump backed by tp. You tend to associate with who has similar views, false compirson? Not at all.

Doesn't really surprise me that you don't see the difference. Let me spell it out for you.

Trump is the one actually saying the woman would look better on her knees and his supporters like it.

Bernie is not the one who crapped on the cop car.

The one guy who did crap on the cop car is not representative of the entire OW movement and I doubt that the OWM or Bernie approve of his actions.

In a nutshell, you're trying to compare the spokesman for one movement to the actions of a single protester in another.

The OWM as a whole, has never supported crapping on cop cars, but the TPM is pretty much in favor of every idiotic idea Trump has expressed and that's why he's their chosen one.

As while that may make you feel better to say to prove yourself right , in this day and age you are judged by who you associate with and who associates with you, especially in politics and we see it everyday. We see it everyday this person did thid or was associated with this. He is now associated with Obama...this means Obama is xyz. On the group level. This Christian did this or said this...all Christians or Muslims or any grpup are now xyz. So while it felt good to write you must admit even privately that while not right, association is a reflection of the whole and people will make entire assumptions based on it.

This isn't about guilt by association, if anything it's just the opposite. Something more akin to association by guilt.

Tea Partiers are associating with Trump because they're guilty of holding the same bigoted views that he does.

Bernie didn't crap on any cars and no one is supporting his campaign because someone else did, but then it doesn't surprise me that the only thing some people got out of the OWM was a guy crapping on a police car.

Some people?

Honestly surprises you? Tell me when the most outlandish act of an individual or small group is not then sent to the front and then used to tag an entire group as being equally off. Pick any group and tell me when it doesn't happen. Again I didn't bring up ows he did. I simply took what I believed to be the most stand out images imaginable for the players involved, trump , Sanders, tp, ows. Then may a guess on the images that could be used.

I don't think I ever said I was surprised by anything anywhere in this thread.

On the other hand, I did in fact state in several post that I was "NOT SURPRISED" by some people.

Yourself being one of them.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Did you see all the latest polls ?

Yes I did. What do you think the polls will look like around Xmas. If you can believe poll by the MSM, I don't, they change often.

It's also strange how the Right supports polls when it jibes with their ideology but discounts them when they don't.

Trump is going to disappoint a lot of old men. I got some green money to bet....want some of this action?

It's theater amigo, scripted, with plot twists and a surprise ending...you'll see.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

That's the bit that differentiates having an opinion from being a bigot.

You cannot possibly claim that all politicians are bigots because they have an opinion, that's NOT what being a BIGOT is.

You just pasted in that definition, but it seems you didn't even read it or comprehend it for yourself before doing so.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Maverick1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Maverick1
Well, yeah, he could kill it.

On the other hand, he just might win the damned thing.

He might? How do you figure that? Your hopes and desires?

More likely the plain fact that he will have no real competition.

Can ANY Repub beat him? I doubt it. And so do the latest polls.

Biden or Clinton? Gimme a break. Many slam those they assume might vote for Trump, but what kind of people would really and truly vote for the hair-sniffing gaffe machine or the Arkansas mafia-queen herself?

And Sanders? Yeah, no. He can't even hang with Hillary.He's the flavor of the week and will be the answer to a trivia question within five years ... "Which briefly internet -popular presidential hopeful identified as a socialist in the 2016 campaign?"

Meanwhile, Trump is appealing to more and more Americans, and yes, that will include the jobless and suffering black vote, being The demographic that most often competes with illegals for jobs.

Despite the fevered wishes and lame proclamations of the establishment, Trump is very very electable, in my opinion.

Trump may very well be able to capture the GOP nomination but, I'd say he has a farts chance in a hurricane of capturing the White House.

Trump is used to having dictatorial authority over decisions affecting his businesses and he doesn't know the first thing about how to garner the support of legislators required in order to get anything accomplished in government and the only ones who don't realize this fact are the willfully ignorant.

Especially after witnessing, over the last 6 1/2 yrs, just how dysfunctional our government can be when one party decides to employ obstructionism as policy.

Trump's business successes can be attributed to two primary business tactics.

The first one being his admitted use of bribery, (political donations) to get favors from legislators in all branches of government.

The second one being the use of threats of unlimited law suits to silence anyone who opposes him.

While I'll agree that there are many who, blinded by their hatred, don't see this reality, IMO it's both naive and somewhat insulting to the minority communities to infer that a majority of their demographic will somehow buy into his trash talk.

If I were you, I'd keep my eye on Bernie Sanders who actually describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist," which is actually a pretty good description of how our society is supposed to work.

He's not a "Dictatorial Socalist," which is the portrayal that many on the right are attempting to label him with.

I think this election is going to turn out to be the big inevitable battle that's been brewing between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wallstreet movement, with the TP backing Trump and OW backing Bernie.

I'm betting OW wins with Bernie.

I can see the image now. A picture of trump with a caption of him telling his apprentice lady " you'd look better on your knees" an image of an ows protestor taking a dump on a cop car. Your choice.....

Problem is, no one on the left is trying to elect the protester who crapped on the cop car.

Kind of a false comparison, wouldn't you say?

Not when you say Bernie backed by ows and trump backed by tp. You tend to associate with who has similar views, false compirson? Not at all.

Doesn't really surprise me that you don't see the difference. Let me spell it out for you.

Trump is the one actually saying the woman would look better on her knees and his supporters like it.

Bernie is not the one who crapped on the cop car.

The one guy who did crap on the cop car is not representative of the entire OW movement and I doubt that the OWM or Bernie approve of his actions.

In a nutshell, you're trying to compare the spokesman for one movement to the actions of a single protester in another.

The OWM as a whole, has never supported crapping on cop cars, but the TPM is pretty much in favor of every idiotic idea Trump has expressed and that's why he's their chosen one.

As while that may make you feel better to say to prove yourself right , in this day and age you are judged by who you associate with and who associates with you, especially in politics and we see it everyday. We see it everyday this person did thid or was associated with this. He is now associated with Obama...this means Obama is xyz. On the group level. This Christian did this or said this...all Christians or Muslims or any grpup are now xyz. So while it felt good to write you must admit even privately that while not right, association is a reflection of the whole and people will make entire assumptions based on it.

This isn't about guilt by association, if anything it's just the opposite. Something more akin to association by guilt.

Tea Partiers are associating with Trump because they're guilty of holding the same bigoted views that he does.

Bernie didn't crap on any cars and no one is supporting his campaign because someone else did, but then it doesn't surprise me that the only thing some people got out of the OWM was a guy crapping on a police car.

Some people?

Honestly surprises you? Tell me when the most outlandish act of an individual or small group is not then sent to the front and then used to tag an entire group as being equally off. Pick any group and tell me when it doesn't happen. Again I didn't bring up ows he did. I simply took what I believed to be the most stand out images imaginable for the players involved, trump , Sanders, tp, ows. Then may a guess on the images that could be used.

I don't think I ever said I was surprised by anything anywhere in this thread.

On the other hand, I did in fact state in several post that I was "NOT SURPRISED" by some people.

Yourself being one of them.

I'll take that as a compliment. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Or so my eldest tells me.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: olaru12

Bush or Clinton pick your poison.

My moneys on Bush, for a myriad of reason. The main one being the neocon war machine connection. That's huge!!!!

I'll take a British bookmakers opinion, over a dumbass msm poll anytime.



www.paddypower.com...

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

That's the bit that differentiates having an opinion from being a bigot.

You cannot possibly claim that all politicians are bigots because they have an opinion, that's NOT what being a BIGOT is.

You just pasted in that definition, but it seems you didn't even read it or comprehend it for yourself before doing so.

When you slice the definition in half it's a bit different


having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

Didnt say politicians were bigots for having opinions, but just about every group divided along multiple lines do in fact believe their beliefs are superior to those that disagree and are in many cases intolerant of other opinions. Don't care how much they claim otherwise. It's how people roll these days especially in group settings.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: olaru12

Bush or Clinton pick your poison.

My moneys on Bush, for a myriad of reason. The main one being the neocon war machine connection. That's huge!!!!

I'll take a British bookmakes opinion, over a dumbass msm poll anytime.



www.paddypower.com...

Do not doubt it in the least. I just think those are the only two connected and corrupt enough to pull it off

OP, you don't need Trump to sink the Republican party, they're doing that themselves by refusing to move on and refusing to deal with the religious right-wing at its core.

The stats from the last election clearly show that the youth vote is turning Democrat, the Republican party is moving further and further away from the political opinions of the general population. You only need to look at the passing of same sex marriage to see this for yourself.

The Republican party will not win as long as it remains a party of backward thinking, anti-progressive, religiously based moralistic nonsense.

The only way the Republican party can survive, or even develop to be in line with social attitudes, is if they remove the moralistic and religious nonsense entirely and focus on practical conservatism - economic, military, governmental etc.

They need to abandon any mention of religion, give up the homophobia, abandon the sexist attitudes of the 1950's, stop with all the backward preaching about immigration, and start focusing on things the majority of Americans ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT.

Trump is just continuing the same bs, he's an old man out of touch with the young voter, complaining about issues that they are well aware are far more complex than he claims. The people in their 50's, 60's and 70's might fall for it, because they're easier to sway with simplistic pining for imagined "good old days", but the young and powerful voting public are laughing at him.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: olaru12

Bush or Clinton pick your poison.

My moneys on Bush, for a myriad of reason. The main one being the neocon war machine connection. That's huge!!!!

I'll take a British bookmakes opinion, over a dumbass msm poll anytime.



www.paddypower.com...

Do not doubt it in the least. I just think those are the only two connected and corrupt enough to pull it off

It's painful, but I agree with you...

Anyone running on any ticket from any party will alienate @45% of the voters.

It's the divisive nature of politics anymore.

You won't find a candidate that appeals to 75% of the voters.

It just isn't possible any longer.

So when headlines scream that any politician or candidate is alienating some voters, it's actually business as usual.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
When you slice the definition in half it's a bit different

having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

Didnt say politicians were bigots for having opinions, but just about every group divided along multiple lines do in fact believe their beliefs are superior to those that disagree and are in many cases intolerant of other opinions. Don't care how much they claim otherwise. It's how people roll these days especially in group settings.

It only makes it different because you misunderstood the definition to begin with. The word "and" is an important part of that definition, and the inclusion of "prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others" makes it even more clear.

A prejudiced intolerance is nothing at all like having a difference of opinion.

Prejudiced is the second vitally important word in this piece.

We can disagree about something, but that doesn't make either opinion a bigoted one. It only becomes a bigoted one when it is expressed through prejudiced views.

There is clearly a language comprehension problem here, and those who starred your post are experiencing that problem too.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
When you slice the definition in half it's a bit different

having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

Didnt say politicians were bigots for having opinions, but just about every group divided along multiple lines do in fact believe their beliefs are superior to those that disagree and are in many cases intolerant of other opinions. Don't care how much they claim otherwise. It's how people roll these days especially in group settings.

It only makes it different because you misunderstood the definition to begin with. The word "and" is an important part of that definition, and the inclusion of "prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others" makes it even more clear.

A prejudiced intolerance is nothing at all like having a difference of opinion.

Prejudiced is the second vitally important word in this piece.

We can disagree about something, but that doesn't make either opinion a bigoted one. It only becomes a bigoted one when it is expressed through prejudiced views.

There is clearly a language comprehension problem here, and those who starred your post are experiencing that problem too.

prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/
noun
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.


So every opinion you frown upon is done so because of experience and reason? And reason is very subjected.

You may justify or explain something as reasonable based on your experience while someone else may do the exact opposite based on their. So throwing out reason as subjective what you are saying is its only bigoted if no experience is involved?