The establishment is trying to destroy Cruz.

[praise_yeshua]

I absolutely, positively DO believe either Trump or Cruz can win a general against the liberal socialist democrat nominee.
Sorry, but your conventional wisdom doesn't convince me...that SAME wisdom gave us McCain and Romney...and the Republican Establishment theme song "I'm a Loser". Frankly, your take on this is the minority opinion among Republicans. It's the same old tired establishment view. No personal offense intended....

I'm not sure how "my conventional wisdom" did anything to give us McCain or Romney as neither were my choice for the nominee, especially McCain. I must run in different republican circles. Must be the establishment. But I think it's more with people who have an aversion to the messenger.

This is a text my niece sent to me the other day:

"I just argued with (my uncle), my mom, my sister and Mimi for an hour about politics. It came down to my mom saying- and everyone agreeing- that God doesn't judge Christians now or in Heaven, all our sins are forgiven already, so if we vote for someone who God doesn't approve of He'll understand. I'm truly, truly confused at that

I'm not expecting Christian standards out of a president, but morals..?! It should be a requirement of all mankind and the president should be the example of decency to our country. Especially in America as we're the leaders of the world. This guy has zero class, is a narcissist and, I believe, dangerous. But I'm fine with others' expectations of their nominee not being the same as mine, just not when I know they know better and are lying to themselves. My family!! It's so weird. I started to cry out of frustration bc I realized that, at some point, my older family members were not only wrong but were really and truly arguing against something I've been taught my whole life- by them- and I felt like the authoritative adult in that minute... but not in a good way. I was proud though that I didn't let any tears fall and I could feel nothing but love despite being so angered".

Now whether you agree with her or not I believe this is a more visceral disagreement than just political. Trump has some pretty wacky ideas but his utter lack of character is a big one for me and many others. We've had a divided party before, Rockefeller v Goldwater, Reagan v Ford, Reagan v Bush, but other than Rockefeller,  they were good guys who could come together. I don't think Trump is a good guy. I think the party is pretty well in tatters and done. Some will be pleased.

Your niece is naive.

There is no moral character in a chronic liar. Ted Cruz is a chronic liar. He's proven it time and time again. Your niece should apply the same standard she applies to Trump to Rafael Edward Cruz.

The "Cruzbots" are really grasping at straws. They actually have people believing Cruz has strong moral character..... What a joke.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I am not a Ted Cruz fan. His ties to Seven Mountain Dominionism, and to Christian Reconstructionist nutjobs like Kevin Swanson, are a definite turn-off. But I think he's at least better than Trump.

That makes sense.... :-\

What is it you don't like about Trump?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I absolutely, positively DO believe either Trump or Cruz can win a general against the liberal socialist democrat nominee.
Sorry, but your conventional wisdom doesn't convince me...that SAME wisdom gave us McCain and Romney...and the Republican Establishment theme song "I'm a Loser". Frankly, your take on this is the minority opinion among Republicans. It's the same old tired establishment view. No personal offense intended....

I'm not sure how "my conventional wisdom" did anything to give us McCain or Romney as neither were my choice for the nominee, especially McCain. I must run in different republican circles. Must be the establishment. But I think it's more with people who have an aversion to the messenger.

This is a text my niece sent to me the other day:

"I just argued with (my uncle), my mom, my sister and Mimi for an hour about politics. It came down to my mom saying- and everyone agreeing- that God doesn't judge Christians now or in Heaven, all our sins are forgiven already, so if we vote for someone who God doesn't approve of He'll understand. I'm truly, truly confused at that

I'm not expecting Christian standards out of a president, but morals..?! It should be a requirement of all mankind and the president should be the example of decency to our country. Especially in America as we're the leaders of the world. This guy has zero class, is a narcissist and, I believe, dangerous. But I'm fine with others' expectations of their nominee not being the same as mine, just not when I know they know better and are lying to themselves. My family!! It's so weird. I started to cry out of frustration bc I realized that, at some point, my older family members were not only wrong but were really and truly arguing against something I've been taught my whole life- by them- and I felt like the authoritative adult in that minute... but not in a good way. I was proud though that I didn't let any tears fall and I could feel nothing but love despite being so angered".

Now whether you agree with her or not I believe this is a more visceral disagreement than just political. Trump has some pretty wacky ideas but his utter lack of character is a big one for me and many others. We've had a divided party before, Rockefeller v Goldwater, Reagan v Ford, Reagan v Bush, but other than Rockefeller,  they were good guys who could come together. I don't think Trump is a good guy. I think the party is pretty well in tatters and done. Some will be pleased.

The conventional wisdom is exactly what gave us McCain and Romney.
It may not be yours, but you recite this year's CW nonetheless.
I do not disagree with you about Trump, at all.
Neither do I think Cruz has/is handling the situation well at all...in fact my support for him has weakened as this has progressed. What has not changed is the disdain I share with a large majority of the Republican base for The Establishment! Yes, JJ they do exist!

If the convention yields a candidate that did not win delegates thru the primary election process, I will not support the candidate, unless very unusual circumstances come into play.

I am very much interested in politics, have been since I was a teenager.
I know many of our elected officials and Republican Party activists and they for the most part share my sentiment. But, maybe the wizards of smart know more than I think they do...but in the past they have been consistently wrong!

Have I mentioned that the establishment would rather lose with Bush, Romney, Kasich than win with Trump or Cruz?

 

[Just John]

Your niece is naive.

There is no moral character in a chronic liar. Ted Cruz is a chronic liar. He's proven it time and time again. Your niece should apply the same standard she applies to Trump to Rafael Edward Cruz.

The "Cruzbots" are really grasping at straws. They actually have people believing Cruz has strong moral character..... What a joke.

She lives in another state. I don't talk to her often but she wasn't a Cruz person initially. Don't know who she is currently supporting.

 

[Just John]

If the convention yields a candidate that did not win delegates thru the primary election process, I will not support the candidate, unless very unusual circumstances come into play.

It's happened before, more than once. But you are entitled to your vote. Lose with Trump or someone else. Whatever your conscience tells you. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

If the convention yields a candidate that did not win delegates thru the primary election process, I will not support the candidate, unless very unusual circumstances come into play.

It's happened before, more than once. But you are entitled to your vote. Lose with Trump or someone else. Whatever your conscience tells you. 

How do you expect to win the Presidency with a candidate that hasn't even been part of the primary process?

 

[Izdaari]

I am not a Ted Cruz fan. His ties to Seven Mountain Dominionism, and to Christian Reconstructionist nutjobs like Kevin Swanson, are a definite turn-off. But I think he's at least better than Trump.

That makes sense.... :-\

What is it you don't like about Trump?

Well. I'm a libertarian and he's kind of the opposite. His instincts are to use government power to solve every problem. He's a nativist, trade warrior, authoritarian populist. His ideas on foreign policy are uninformed and naive. His depth of ignorance on the issues would be painfully obvious on a debate stage with a couple of policy wonks like Cruz and Kasich, which is why he won't do it. He was struggling to come up with complete answers in the last debate, when it was down to four and there was more time.  And his rudeness. sexism and lack of class is very unpresidential.

And one more thing: I think Hillary will kick his ass in the general election, and it won't be pretty. He'll probably take the Republican Senate down with him. He does well in Republican primaries. but Republicans are only about a third of the electorate. He does terrible with women and minorities. He can attract some blue dog Democrats, especially in the Rust Belt, but the number of people who will never, ever vote for him is extremely high.

 

[Just John]

Trump will win over women. He's had a rather good track record of dong just that.

Your um, misspelling above may be Freudian.

I would certainly like to know how he goes about "winning over women". 

Here's a fun sample...

http://www.amny.com/news/elections

Or perhaps these. Of course there are many more that couldn't be posted here.

1. On pushing the Miss USA pageant in 2005: "If you?re looking for a rocket scientist, don't tune in tonight, but if you're looking for a really beautiful woman, you should watch."
2. On Carmen Electra: "The boob job is terrible; they look like two light posts coming out of a body."
3. On Desperate Housewives star Marcia Cross: "Would you go out with Marcia Cross or would you turn gay, Howard?"
4.On his desire to have more kids: "I mean, I won't do anything to take care of them. I'll supply funds and [Melania will] take care of the kids."
5. On his household help: "They're not tens, I can tell you that. I've been very domesticated. It's a sad event."
6. On how women approach him: "They'll walk up, and they'll flip their top, and they'll flip their panties."

Yeah, I'm sure the women voters will just be "flipping their tops" to vote for him. Especially after these quotes are run on  a loop all summer and fall if he gets the nomination. What a man!

 

[Just John]

If the convention yields a candidate that did not win delegates thru the primary election process, I will not support the candidate, unless very unusual circumstances come into play.

It's happened before, more than once. But you are entitled to your vote. Lose with Trump or someone else. Whatever your conscience tells you. 

How do you expect to win the Presidency with a candidate that hasn't even been part of the primary process?

I know comprehension is not your thing but I have said more than once that I don't expect a Republican to win this year. Any Republican. Now, that being said, it has happened before that a person not running was given the nomination and won the election:

1877 - James Garfield after 2 days and on the 36th ballot....and he wasn't even running as a candidate.

I'm sure you saw this posted earlier from me as you commented on it. No trophies for participation. Either you have the delegates or you don't. Past battles (not including Reagan v Ford in 1976):

Five Republicans have trailed in the convention when voting began but went onto become the nominee and President:

1860 - Lincoln on the third ballot

1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes began in the 5th spot and after 7 ballots became the nominee.

1877 - James Garfield after 2 days and on the 36th ballot....and he wasn't even running as a candidate.

1888 - Benjamin Harris was 5th place on the first ballot and nominated on the 8th ballot

1920 - Warren G Harding began in 6th place on the 1st ballot and won it on the 10th ballot. (The leader on the 1st ballot had 1/3 of the support).

 

[praise_yeshua]

Trump will win over women. He's had a rather good track record of dong just that.

Your um, misspelling above may be Freudian.

I would certainly like to know how he goes about "winning over women". 

Here's a fun sample...

http://www.amny.com/news/elections

Or perhaps these. Of course there are many more that couldn't be posted here.

1. On pushing the Miss USA pageant in 2005: "If you?re looking for a rocket scientist, don't tune in tonight, but if you're looking for a really beautiful woman, you should watch."
2. On Carmen Electra: "The boob job is terrible; they look like two light posts coming out of a body."
3. On Desperate Housewives star Marcia Cross: "Would you go out with Marcia Cross or would you turn gay, Howard?"
4.On his desire to have more kids: "I mean, I won't do anything to take care of them. I'll supply funds and [Melania will] take care of the kids."
5. On his household help: "They're not tens, I can tell you that. I've been very domesticated. It's a sad event."
6. On how women approach him: "They'll walk up, and they'll flip their top, and they'll flip their panties."

Yeah, I'm sure the women voters will just be "flipping their tops" to vote for him. Especially after these quotes are run on  a loop all summer and fall if he gets the nomination. What a man!

I never said he was a saint. Most of those quotes are old. I've said similar things in the past.

Trump's biggest liability is his mouth. It works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. He needs to stop being so petty....

But that is his appeal to older people that are so tired of living in a world that overcome by idealistic people who can't run their own lives.... much-less lead a country.

I've been on my phone few times today. Sorry for the typos and stuff. Just chalk it up to stupidity. You'll have something else to bash Trump for...

 

[praise_yeshua]

If the convention yields a candidate that did not win delegates thru the primary election process, I will not support the candidate, unless very unusual circumstances come into play.

It's happened before, more than once. But you are entitled to your vote. Lose with Trump or someone else. Whatever your conscience tells you. 

How do you expect to win the Presidency with a candidate that hasn't even been part of the primary process?

I know comprehension is not your thing but I have said more than once that I don't expect a Republican to win this year. Any Republican. Now, that being said, it has happened before that a person not running was given the nomination and won the election:

1877 - James Garfield after 2 days and on the 36th ballot....and he wasn't even running as a candidate.

I'm sure you saw this posted earlier from me as you commented on it. No trophies for participation. Either you have the delegates or you don't. Past battles (not including Reagan v Ford in 1976):

Five Republicans have trailed in the convention when voting began but went onto become the nominee and President:

1860 - Lincoln on the third ballot

1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes began in the 5th spot and after 7 ballots became the nominee.

1877 - James Garfield after 2 days and on the 36th ballot....and he wasn't even running as a candidate.

1888 - Benjamin Harris was 5th place on the first ballot and nominated on the 8th ballot

1920 - Warren G Harding began in 6th place on the 1st ballot and won it on the 10th ballot. (The leader on the 1st ballot had 1/3 of the support).

So all you have is James Garfield? I hope you realize that Garfield was assassinated?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well. I'm a libertarian and he's kind of the opposite. His instincts are to use government power to solve every problem. He's a nativist, trade warrior, authoritarian populist. His ideas on foreign policy are uninformed and naive.

In what way?

His depth of ignorance on the issues would be painfully obvious on a debate stage with a couple of policy wonks like Cruz and Kasich, which is why he won't do it. He was struggling to come up with complete answers in the last debate, when it was down to four and there was more time.  And his rudeness. sexism and lack of class is very unpresidential.

As compared to who? Do you need a history lesson on how "sexist" and classless" Presidents have been in the past?

Share a distinct issue and I'll try to address it.

And one more thing: I think Hillary will kick his ass in the general election, and it won't be pretty.

You have a very high opinion of Hillary. Lets say Kasich wins and you get your wish... and Hillary is still President....

Will you take back your assertion that Trump is terrible because he can't win.

He'll probably take the Republican Senate down with him. He does well in Republican primaries. but Republicans are only about a third of the electorate. He does terrible with women and minorities. He can attract some blue dog Democrats, especially in the Rust Belt, but the number of people who will never, ever vote for him is extremely high.

I don't believe there is hardly any Trump support that will vote for Cruz or Kasich. So..... just how are you going to change anything?

You're not a Republican. Not at all. Why do you care? I'd expect you'd vote for Sanders over Trump?

 

[Izdaari]

Of course I'm not a Republican. I'm a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party.  But I'll usually vote for a Republican over a Democrat if those are my only options. I voted for Reagan in 1980, and am still happy with that vote, though in some ways he didn't live up to expectations. Still, he was the best president in my lifetime, if we don't count the ones I was too young to remember much about (Eisenhower and Kennedy were pretty good, but of course I was too young to know much about politics during their terms).

With my first Republican choice , Rand Paul, and my second, Carly Fiorina, out of the race, I think Kasich is the best one left in the field. But I don't see any way Kasich can get the nomination. Between them, Cruz and Trump will have about 80% of the delegates. and I'm sure they'll cooperate to block anyone besides one of them getting it. So it's going to be Cruz or Trump.

Cruz is far too socially conservative for my taste, but he is solid on economics, taxes, gun rights and the size of government.  Also on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, except for a warped Religious Right understanding of the First Amendment. I guess I can settle for that if I have to.

Trump is the "pig in a poke" candidate. Nobody really knows what he'd do in office, maybe not even himself. He won't give much in the way of policy specifics, probably because he doesn't have any. He didn't know what the nuclear triad was the first time he was asked, and the second time, after he'd had plenty of time to find out, he still didn't. He thinks backing out of NATO is a good idea, and that's very dangerous, especially coming from a guy who doesn't really understand foreign policy.

Remembering LBJ and Nixon, I take your point about previous sexist and uncouth presidents, but I despised LBJ and wasn't too happy with Nixon either, and I don't want a repeat.

Trump's negatives are enormous, particularly among women, 74% of whom have an unfavorable opinion of him. I don't see how he can possibly overcome that to win the general election. Hillary's negatives are high too, but not nearly as bad. Current polls are showing Kasich beating Hillary by a lot, Cruz beating her by a little, and Trump losing to her badly.

 

[Izdaari]

Oh, and Sanders: he's not going to beat Hillary for the nomination unless she's indicted.

From a policy standpoint, I mostly like him on the social issues, but he's a disaster on economics, taxes, size of government, Supreme Court appointments, gun rights and foreign policy. No, I can't vote for Sanders, not ever over Trump.

 

[Just John]

Trump is the "pig in a poke" candidate. Nobody really knows what he'd do in office, maybe not even himself. He won't give much in the way of policy specifics, probably because he doesn't have any. He didn't know what the nuclear triad was the first time he was asked, and the second time, after he'd had plenty of time to find out, he still didn't. He thinks backing out of NATO is a good idea, and that's very dangerous, especially coming from a guy who doesn't really understand foreign policy.

Remembering LBJ and Nixon, I take your point about previous sexist and uncouth presidents, but I despised LBJ and wasn't too happy with Nixon either, and I don't want a repeat.

Trump's negatives are enormous, particularly among women, 74% of whom have an unfavorable opinion of him. I don't see how he can possibly overcome that to win the general election. Hillary's negatives are high too, but not nearly as bad. Current polls are showing Kasich beating Hillary by a lot, Cruz beating her by a little, and Trump losing to her badly.

I think you sell Trump a little short Izzy. He was pretty certain last night are the "top three functions of government".

"The greatest function of all by far is security for our nation. I would also say health care, I would also say education."

So, this "messiah to the non-establishment" thinks the three top functions of government are safety, healthcare and education??? Oh but it gets better.

Anderson Cooper tried to clarify. "So in terms of federal government role, you're saying security, but you also say health care and education should be provided by the federal government?"

Trump replied, "yeah, those are two of the things. Yeah, sure. there are obviously many things, housing, providing great neighborhoods?"

Who knew our Founding Fathers were grappling with such weighty matters as providing federal education, healthcare and great neighborhoods!!!!

He further rambled on showing he had no clue what he was talking about.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/you-wont-believe-what-donald-trump-thinks-the-federal-governments-top-3-roles-are/article/2001749

 

[FSSL]

While I agree government should not be about health care, the reality is our next administration needs to make that one a priority.

It will take a bunch of moxy and clout to get rid of a government insurance program and get it back into the hands of the people.

Education... Stoopid common core has got to go.

Oh... And build that wall which has money already allocated for it by Congress a decade ago!

 

[Just John]

While I agree government should not be about health care, the reality is our next administration needs to make that one a priority.

It will take a bunch of moxy and clout to get rid of a government insurance program and get it back into the hands of the people.

Education... Stoopid common core has got to go.

Oh... And build that wall which has money already allocated for it by Congress a decade ago!

I agree on all three.  Healthcare because the Fed's don't have a reason to be involved in providing healthcare. Common Core because the Fed's don't have any business dictating to the states what kids learn. The fence because it helps the security of the country. But Trump is wrong on two of the three. He wants the federal government involved in healthcare and education. He thinks it's two of the three "top functions". Not even priorities but functions. Seriously, even some of his supporters would have to agree he makes this stuff up as he goes. It was painful to watch his comments on punishing women for abortion today. Totally making it up on the fly.

 

[Izdaari]

Oh my! Trump keeps getting worse and worse, digging himself deeper and deeper with ignorance of the issues.

 

[prophet]

I'm sure you're right JJ.
Just business as usual in the Grand Old Party.
And, I'm also sure that the vast majority of their voters totally agree and will simply vote for the duly elected, er..appointed nominee. 

Did I mention that the establishment would rather lose (they are very good at that) with Bush, Romney, Kasich etc than win with Trump or Cruz.

Oh I think the GOP has already given this election away. If you think Trump has a prayer of winning when 70% of REPUBLICAN women have a negative view of him I'd like to know how.  Yes, Hillary is a terrible candidate but a lot of her voters don't care about character.

Trump will win over women. He's had a rather good track record of dong just that.

Oh, the irony.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[Jehanne La Pucelle]

Trump wants the federal government involved in healthcare and education.

That . . . is scary!