The Trump Candidacy

[Mrs. Gooch]

I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton. Oh, and Donald also has small hands. Good point, little Marco.

I mean, isn't that the point of all primaries? You bash your opponents and then as soon as they win the nomination you support them.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton.

You really can, and it's really not a hard concept to grasp:

1.  Donald Trump would be a very bad president. 
2.  Hillary would be a worse president than Donald Trump. 
3.  I would support Donald Trump over Hillary.

Like I said, you may disagree with point 2 (I do), but pretending to be shocked by the logic is bizarre.

I think you would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe 2. I get why the candidates all fell into line, since they have a rabid base to appease, but I don't really think they believe Donald Trump would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton. Oh, and Donald also has small hands. Good point, little Marco.

I mean, isn't that the point of all primaries? You bash your opponents and then as soon as they win the nomination you support them.

Not like this.

[Mrs. Gooch]

I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton.

You really can, and it's really not a hard concept to grasp:

1.  Donald Trump would be a very bad president. 
2.  Hillary would be a worse president than Donald Trump. 
3.  I would support Donald Trump over Hillary.

Like I said, you may disagree with point 2 (I do), but pretending to be shocked by the logic is bizarre.

I think you would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe 2. I get why the candidates all fell into line, since they have a rabid base to appease, but I don't really think they believe Donald Trump would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

I think my mom believes #2 because she watched 13 Hours.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If the republicans truly believed that Donald would be a better president than Hillary, they wouldn't be plotting openly about trying to get a brokered convention so they can steal the nomination from him and put up somebody the people didn't vote for instead.

[DQ12]

I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton.

You really can, and it's really not a hard concept to grasp:

1.  Donald Trump would be a very bad president. 
2.  Hillary would be a worse president than Donald Trump. 
3.  I would support Donald Trump over Hillary.

Like I said, you may disagree with point 2 (I do), but pretending to be shocked by the logic is bizarre.

I think you would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe 2. I get why the candidates all fell into line, since they have a rabid base to appease, but I don't really think they believe Donald Trump would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

I think anyone would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe that Trump would be a better "head of state" than Hillary.  But I think if you're truly committed to the conservative principles and policies you've been espousing for the last year or two, a Trump presidency is far more likely to enact more of them than a Hillary presidency.

From a policy standpoint, Trump and the rest of the GOP field don't appear to be all that different.  The method of accomplishing those goals vary widely, but not as much as they do compared to Hillary.

[Asteriskhead]

I don't really get why everyone is so up in arms about the other nominees saying they would vote for trump in a general.  Yeah, they hate Donald and think that he'd be a lousy president.  Guess what?  They hate Hillary too and think she'd be a worse president.

They should write themselves in, if they believe they are the best candidate, not just fall in lockstep because they didn't win. That is one of the reasons why people are upset with the parties.

Really?  Do you think Bernie should keep campaigning after he loses the nomination?

Yes, and I believe Bernie supporters would prefer to back him as an independent, rather than give their vote to Hilary. Both parties need destroyed, this election cycle is the chance to do it.

Fair, but that only makes sense, pragmatically, if there's someone on the Right to split the Republican nominee's vote.  Otherwise, "well done well done," Bernie, point well made, but in the mean time, settle in for 4 years of President Donald J. Trump.

Pray to your god for me that the GOP pushes out Trump.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton.

You really can, and it's really not a hard concept to grasp:

1.  Donald Trump would be a very bad president. 
2.  Hillary would be a worse president than Donald Trump. 
3.  I would support Donald Trump over Hillary.

Like I said, you may disagree with point 2 (I do), but pretending to be shocked by the logic is bizarre.

I think you would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe 2. I get why the candidates all fell into line, since they have a rabid base to appease, but I don't really think they believe Donald Trump would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

I think anyone would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe that Trump would be a better "head of state" than Hillary.  But I think if you're truly committed to the conservative principles and policies you've been espousing for the last year or two, a Trump presidency is far more likely to enact more of them than a Hillary presidency.

From a policy standpoint, Trump and the rest of the GOP field don't appear to be all that different.  The method of accomplishing those goals vary widely, but not as much as they do compared to Hillary.

What sort of conservative principles are you referring to?

[star seed 7]

War crimes and racism

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton.

You really can, and it's really not a hard concept to grasp:

1.  Donald Trump would be a very bad president. 
2.  Hillary would be a worse president than Donald Trump. 
3.  I would support Donald Trump over Hillary.

Like I said, you may disagree with point 2 (I do), but pretending to be shocked by the logic is bizarre.

I think you would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe 2. I get why the candidates all fell into line, since they have a rabid base to appease, but I don't really think they believe Donald Trump would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

I think anyone would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe that Trump would be a better "head of state" than Hillary.  But I think if you're truly committed to the conservative principles and policies you've been espousing for the last year or two, a Trump presidency is far more likely to enact more of them than a Hillary presidency.

From a policy standpoint, Trump and the rest of the GOP field don't appear to be all that different.  The method of accomplishing those goals vary widely, but not as much as they do compared to Hillary.

What sort of conservative principles are you referring to?

Dlew is exactly correct. And these principles would include (a) repealing and replacing Obamacare, (b) enacting stricter immigration enforcement, and (c) reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, to name just a few. All are at least possible with Trump. So Point 2 above is not only logical, it is reasonable from a conservative point of view.

On foreign policy, it is possible that Trump could be worse than Hillary (she's got a pretty terrible track record, FYI), but I think his advisors and generals would keep him in check.

[DQ12]

I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton.

You really can, and it's really not a hard concept to grasp:

1.  Donald Trump would be a very bad president. 
2.  Hillary would be a worse president than Donald Trump. 
3.  I would support Donald Trump over Hillary.

Like I said, you may disagree with point 2 (I do), but pretending to be shocked by the logic is bizarre.

I think you would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe 2. I get why the candidates all fell into line, since they have a rabid base to appease, but I don't really think they believe Donald Trump would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

I think anyone would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe that Trump would be a better "head of state" than Hillary.  But I think if you're truly committed to the conservative principles and policies you've been espousing for the last year or two, a Trump presidency is far more likely to enact more of them than a Hillary presidency.

From a policy standpoint, Trump and the rest of the GOP field don't appear to be all that different.  The method of accomplishing those goals vary widely, but not as much as they do compared to Hillary.

What sort of conservative principles are you referring to?

I mean, generally speaking, fiscal and social policy. 

I honestly can't tell whether you're intentionally being obtuse about this.  I know having a serious discussion about the logic behind supporting a Trump presidency is weird (trust me, it's weird for me too), but that's a reality we're dealing with right now.

[star seed 7]

Also don't forget that regresocons really love putin and trump claims he will be best buds with putin

[DQ12]

Also don't forget that regresocons really love putin and trump claims he will be best buds with putin

Putin was pretty well demonized by everyone not named Trump last night.

[star seed 7]

People like ksuw, fsd, and their facebook groups love putin

[Rage Against the McKee]

I mean you can't spend 2 hours telling me that Donald Trump has no policy or plans whatsoever, defrauds people all the time, bankrupts businesses regularly, and would be a complete and total failure of a president, and then at the end of all that tell me you'd support him over Hillary Clinton.

You really can, and it's really not a hard concept to grasp:

1.  Donald Trump would be a very bad president. 
2.  Hillary would be a worse president than Donald Trump. 
3.  I would support Donald Trump over Hillary.

Like I said, you may disagree with point 2 (I do), but pretending to be shocked by the logic is bizarre.

I think you would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe 2. I get why the candidates all fell into line, since they have a rabid base to appease, but I don't really think they believe Donald Trump would be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

I think anyone would have to have a serious lack of judgment to actually believe that Trump would be a better "head of state" than Hillary.  But I think if you're truly committed to the conservative principles and policies you've been espousing for the last year or two, a Trump presidency is far more likely to enact more of them than a Hillary presidency.

From a policy standpoint, Trump and the rest of the GOP field don't appear to be all that different.  The method of accomplishing those goals vary widely, but not as much as they do compared to Hillary.

What sort of conservative principles are you referring to?

I mean, generally speaking, fiscal and social policy. 

I honestly can't tell whether you're intentionally being obtuse about this.  I know having a serious discussion about the logic behind supporting a Trump presidency is weird (trust me, it's weird for me too), but that's a reality we're dealing with right now.

Trump has advocated for single payer in the past. Ted Cruz has argued that Trump still wants to implement it today. A border wall would cost more than $10 billion. Mexico is not going to pay for it. I haven't seen a single fiscally conservative policy Trump has advocated beyond a tax cut. I also don't know anything about his social policy other than that he claims to be pro life, lies about being Christian, and wants spy on mosques and ban Muslims from immigrating to the US. Oh, and he wants to bring back water boarding and go much further than that (whatever that means).

[sys]

I don't really get why everyone is so up in arms about the other nominees saying they would vote for trump in a general.  Yeah, they hate Donald and think that he'd be a lousy president.  Guess what?  They hate Hillary too and think she'd be a worse president. Or at least that's how the logic goes.  People may disagree, but the collective gasp last night on the subject was a little puzzling to me.

it's because rubio apparently spent all day tweeting #never, which as i understand it, is a hashtag for pubs who are declaring that they would not support trump in a general election.  then he went on the debates and vowed - "yeah, trump".  for the others, it was not a conflict.

[DQ12]

I mean, generally speaking, fiscal and social policy. 

I honestly can't tell whether you're intentionally being obtuse about this.  I know having a serious discussion about the logic behind supporting a Trump presidency is weird (trust me, it's weird for me too), but that's a reality we're dealing with right now.

Trump has advocated for single payer in the past. Ted Cruz has argued that Trump still wants to implement it today. A border wall would cost more than $10 billion. Mexico is not going to pay for it. I haven't seen a single fiscally conservative policy Trump has advocated beyond a tax cut. I also don't know anything about his social policy other than that he claims to be pro life, lies about being Christian, and wants spy on mosques and ban Muslims from immigrating to the US. Oh, and he wants to bring back water boarding and go much further than that (whatever that means).

So I guess I'm not sure what your point is.

[DQ12]

I don't really get why everyone is so up in arms about the other nominees saying they would vote for trump in a general.  Yeah, they hate Donald and think that he'd be a lousy president.  Guess what?  They hate Hillary too and think she'd be a worse president. Or at least that's how the logic goes.  People may disagree, but the collective gasp last night on the subject was a little puzzling to me.

it's because rubio apparently spent all day tweeting #never, which as i understand it, is a hashtag for pubs who are declaring that they would not support trump in a general election.  then he went on the debates and vowed - "yeah, trump".  for the others, it was not a conflict.

WELL.  I didn't know that.

In that case, yeah.  You shouldn't say "#never" if you actually mean "ok but only in this incredibly likely circumstance."

[Rage Against the McKee]

The point is that Hillary is more fiscally conservative than Trump would be. I guess Trump is more socially conservative if that means being a racist and torturing folks.

[DQ12]

The point is that Hillary is more fiscally conservative than Trump would be. I guess Trump is more socially conservative if that means being a racist and torturing folks.

I think, on its face, "Hillary is more fiscally conservative than Trump" is a pretty bold take.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The point is that Hillary is more fiscally conservative than Trump would be. I guess Trump is more socially conservative if that means being a racist and torturing folks.

I think "Hillary is more fiscally conservative than Trump" is a pretty bold take.

We're defining "more fiscally conservative" as spending less money, right?

[steve dave]

I usually only define it as taxing me less money. I don't have any idea where donald trump would fall on that.

[DQ12]

The point is that Hillary is more fiscally conservative than Trump would be. I guess Trump is more socially conservative if that means being a racist and torturing folks.

I think "Hillary is more fiscally conservative than Trump" is a pretty bold take.

We're defining "more fiscally conservative" as spending less money, right?

That, and lowering taxes.

I think Trump's ideas are ludicrous and obscene and (most importantly) unclear.  That said, saying "I'm going to seriously cut government waste" signals to a lot of people that he plans on cutting more than enough to offset the cost of the wall and whatever other dumbass policy he plans to enact.  This is one of the many frustrating aspects about discussing Trump - discussing him anything beyond "he'd be embarrassing and dangerous to have as a president" is near impossible, because everything he says is so general. 

That said, I do think he would cut government spending more than Hillary would. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

The point is that Hillary is more fiscally conservative than Trump would be. I guess Trump is more socially conservative if that means being a racist and torturing folks.

I think "Hillary is more fiscally conservative than Trump" is a pretty bold take.

We're defining "more fiscally conservative" as spending less money, right?

That, and lowering taxes.

I think Trump's ideas are ludicrous and obscene and (most importantly) unclear.  That said, saying "I'm going to seriously cut government waste" signals to a lot of people that he plans on cutting more than enough to offset the cost of the wall and whatever other dumbass policy he plans to enact.  This is one of the many frustrating aspects about discussing Trump - discussing him anything beyond "he'd be embarrassing and dangerous to have as a president" is near impossible, because everything he says is so general. 

That said, I do think he would cut government spending more than Hillary would.

The thing is, he has given specific examples of things he wants to increase spending on. Has Hillary? I agree that tax cuts need to be considered, and I'm not sure how heavily they should be weighed. I expect him to increase spending by more than he cuts taxes, though. I think it's common sense that he ends up spending more than Hillary. Military expansion, 1000+ mile walls, and increased surveillance on US citizens cost a lot of money. If you subtract a potential tax cut off of his spending increase, you might fall somewhere below Hillary, but you'd probably have to multiply the tax cut by something.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I agree that Trump has been all over the board on a number of issues. But if my choice is the mystery box or the reliable liberal, felon, and awful human being, I'll take the mystery box.

Also at the idea that Hillary will be more fiscally conservative than Trump.

Finally, if Trump really wants to make Mexico pay for the wall - he actually can. Not sure what the trade consequences would be, but we absolutely have the leverage to make them pay for it.