Cruz Drops Out, Trump Almost Guaranteed GOP Nomination

chevyontheriver said:

Trump is now bending over backwards to make nice with the Republican party. After a few days of that, after he really has an absolute lock on the convention, he will start his swing to the left. He knows that territory quite well after all.

Click to expand...

We'll see. I'm watching him from the back. Either way, I'm not voting for hills but let me say this, if he is a fraud, those who really believed him, it's going to be devastating on this country.

Well, Trump had four bankruptcies--guess that shows what kind of businessman he was. And one time his casino was having problems, his dear old Dad bought a million dollar chip and promised not to cash it in till he was solvent again (wouldn't we all like to have a dear old Dad like that!)

So, let's see, George W. Bush had failed businesses, and he managed to guide us through 8 years in Washington with only a "little" damage to show for his leadership--the worst recession in U.S. history other than the Great Depression.

Yikes! I sure hope another businessman with lots of bankruptcies (i.e. Trump) won't do the same thing...

Seems like the two Presidents who worked in government (Clinton and Obama) did a lot better. Clinton erased our deficit and created a budget surplus; Obama undid the damage of the Bush years and our deficit is shrinking again.
So much for the wisdom of businessmen.

As for why Wall Street fears Trump--it's not because he won't take their money. It's because his trade policies will wreak havoc on the market, our economy, the pocketbooks of the middle class, etc. To see the right way to create employment and help American workers, read anything by Robert Reich.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250

Fantine said:

As for why Wall Street fears Trump--it's not because he won't take their money. It's because his trade policies will wreak havoc on the market, our economy, the pocketbooks of the middle class, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, because Wall Street cares so much about the pocketbooks of the middle class. They care about their profits. Higher tarriffs will rebuild America's manufacturing base, the same way it was built in the first place. You won't find a single major industrial economy that was ever built on free trade. Ask the Chinese whether protectionism has wreaked havoc on their economy.

Fantine said:

Well, Trump had four bankruptcies--guess that shows what kind of businessman he was. And one time his casino was having problems, his dear old Dad bought a million dollar chip and promised not to cash it in till he was solvent again (wouldn't we all like to have a dear old Dad like that!)

So, let's see, George W. Bush had failed businesses, and he managed to guide us through 8 years in Washington with only a "little" damage to show for his leadership--the worst recession in U.S. history other than the Great Depression.

Yikes! I sure hope another businessman with lots of bankruptcies (i.e. Trump) won't do the same thing...

Seems like the two Presidents who worked in government (Clinton and Obama) did a lot better. Clinton erased our deficit and created a budget surplus; Obama undid the damage of the Bush years and our deficit is shrinking again.
So much for the wisdom of businessmen.

As for why Wall Street fears Trump--it's not because he won't take their money. It's because his trade policies will wreak havoc on the market, our economy, the pocketbooks of the middle class, etc. To see the right way to create employment and help American workers, read anything by Robert Reich.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250

Click to expand...

His supporters, who are many, don't care. That's the beauty of this, his supporters, just don't care.

The beauty? Or the folly?

Beauty. Like he said, he can shoot somebody and they'll still support him.

BTW, the conservative Heritage Foundation is the biggest supporter of free trade.

52 Senators voted for the Trans Pacific Partnership. 51 were Republicans; 1 was a Democrat.

Most economists believe that trade partnerships are necessary. Republicans want to pass them without any worker or environmental protections--as is. Democrats want limitations to keep a level playing field for Americans.

I am so tired of the misled watchers of Faux News blaming President Obama for the follies of their own party.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/04/why-free-trade-works-for-america

Trump is not against trade. He is against the crazy trade that's been done.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that this election process is probably one of the worst displays of humanity and decency within politics in recent history.

It has been absolutely disgusting to see the depths people have gone to; both electable and electorate.

I think Trump will be bad news for the U.S.. I don't think Hillary would be great either but I imagine as far as morals go they could tick boxes and fail others and it is, again, choosing between a broken arm or a broken leg. Neither are ideal but I suppose all we can do now is pray for the Lord to guide them one way or the other.

Fantine said:

BTW, the conservative Heritage Foundation is the biggest supporter of free trade.

Click to expand...

Do you generally agree with the Heritage Foundation's positions?

Fantine said:

Most economists believe that trade partnerships are necessary. Republicans want to pass them without any worker or environmental protections--as is. Democrats want limitations to keep a level playing field for Americans.

Click to expand...

There's no fundamental difference between them - just small disagreements over details. Trump knows that partnerships are nothing but Big Business cronyism. That's the real beauty of Trump. This time, for the first time in a long time, the voters actually have a choice

benedictaoo said:

We'll see. I'm watching him from the back. Either way, I'm not voting for hills but let me say this, if he is a fraud, those who really believed him, it's going to be devastating on this country.

Click to expand...

I'm looking to senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and his call for an 'adult third party candidate'. His position is 'never Trump, never Hillary'.

I see them both impossible to vote for, not for exactly the same reasons. One is entitled and truth impaired, unfit for duty, the other is a narcissistic bully, unfit for duty. The choice of the lesser of two evils is, in this case, a Hobson's choice as both are simply unacceptable. The proper choice is anything else than a vote for either of them. So I'm looking for alternatives to the 'D' and 'R' offerings. And I'm not alone. I think there are millions of Democrats who really don't want Hillary and I know there are millions of Republicans who want nothing to do with Trump. I've seen many of these first hand at the precinct caucus, BPOU, and congressional district conventions. At our congressional convention we elected national delegates, all of whom were emphatically not for Trump. I'll be at the Minnesota state convention in two weeks and I suspect this will be the major topic of discussion around which the regular business of the convention will be done.

Six months to pull it off. It will have to be a somewhat centrist government, not everything we could have had with Cruz or Rubio or Fiorina, Walker or Santorum or even Bush. But someone that a Sanders supporter might be able to vote for holding his or her nose. An honest sane humble person, not a Trump and not a Clinton. Big uphill battle. Probably impossible. But have you got a better plan for this country? Trump?

Post Tenebras Lux said:

One thing I think we can all agree on is that this election process is probably one of the worst displays of humanity and decency within politics in recent history.

It has been absolutely disgusting to see the depths people have gone to; both electable and electorate.

I think Trump will be bad news for the U.S.. I don't think Hillary would be great either but I imagine as far as morals go they could tick boxes and fail others and it is, again, choosing between a broken arm or a broken leg. Neither are ideal but I suppose all we can do now is pray for the Lord to guide them one way or the other.

Click to expand...

How about neither of the above? Somebody else who could win a few states outright over Trump AND Hillary, letting the electoral college figure it out. Six months to pull it off. Ben Sasse, senator from Nebraska, is pushing for exactly that, with a candidate who will have to emerge in a month or two. Crazy complex to pull it off. But the alternative makes me sick.

chevyontheriver said:

How about neither of the above? Somebody else who could win a few states outright over Trump AND Hillary, letting the electoral college figure it out. Six months to pull it off. Ben Sasse, senator from Nebraska, is pushing for exactly that, with a candidate who will have to emerge in a month or two. Crazy complex to pull it off. But the alternative makes me sick.

Click to expand...

I've supported doomed causes in the past, but it's important to recognize that the causes are, in fact, doomed.

There's no way that a new candidate will get enough support before the election to win. Get a state and make a point? Maybe. Play spoiler for one candidate and kingmaker for the other? Perhaps. But victory? No way. Not when the core support of both Trump and Hillary will not move an inch, and most of the remainder view third party votes as pointless and quixotic.

MoonlessNight said:

I've supported doomed causes in the past, but it's important to recognize that the causes are, in fact, doomed.

There's no way that a new candidate will get enough support before the election to win. Get a state and make a point? Maybe. Play spoiler for one candidate and kingmaker for the other? Perhaps. But victory? No way. Not when the core support of both Trump and Hillary will not move an inch, and most of the remainder view third party votes as pointless and quixotic.

Click to expand...

There you go then. I hope you will be content with Hillary or the Donald. Inevitability is as inevitable as people make it.

Post Tenebras Lux said:

One thing I think we can all agree on is that this election process is probably one of the worst displays of humanity and decency within politics in recent history.

It has been absolutely disgusting to see the depths people have gone to; both electable and electorate.

I think Trump will be bad news for the U.S.. I don't think Hillary would be great either but I imagine as far as morals go they could tick boxes and fail others and it is, again, choosing between a broken arm or a broken leg. Neither are ideal but I suppose all we can do now is pray for the Lord to guide them one way or the other.

Click to expand...

No, that's not something that we can agree on. The ppl are choosing their candidate this time and it's far from a disgrace that Trump has showed these bums up for the bums that they are.

This year's Rebublican primary contest between the party's voting base and it's donor class, who see eye to eye on little any more. Thus the intra-party contest, instead of a friendly competition, became a bloodsport, and both sides knew that losers would be driven to the margins of the party. Of course it's not gonna look pretty.

chevyontheriver said:

There you go then. I hope you will be content with Hillary or the Donald. Inevitability is as inevitable as people make it.

Click to expand...

If it were so easy to move the necessary support from Trump to another candidate, he wouldn't have won the nomination.

Now things could change over the next months, but if all the various attacks and strategies already employed against Trump barely made a dent in his campaign, I don't have much confidence that somehow a candidate who hasn't even started campaigning yet is going to pull a completely unprecedented third party win. That would be unlikely even in an election year with poorly supported main-party candidates and with a popular third party candidate who campaigned well before this point (just ask Ross Perot). But in this year its even less likely.

I mean, you might as well hope for a mystery candidate who's political philosophy is entirely and explicitly determined by Catholic teaching. It would be great if we did have such a candidate, and if defeat is only inevitable if people on the internet think its inevitable, we might as well pretend like its possible right?

MoonlessNight said:

If it were so easy to move the necessary support from Trump to another candidate, he wouldn't have won the nomination.

Now things could change over the next months, but if all the various attacks and strategies already employed against Trump barely made a dent in his campaign, I don't have much confidence that somehow a candidate who hasn't even started campaigning yet is going to pull a completely unprecedented third party win. That would be unlikely even in an election year with poorly supported main-party candidates and with a popular third party candidate who campaigned well before this point (just ask Ross Perot). But in this year its even less likely.

I mean, you might as well hope for a mystery candidate who's political philosophy is entirely and explicitly determined by Catholic teaching. It would be great if we did have such a candidate, and if defeat is only inevitable if people on the internet think its inevitable, we might as well pretend like its possible right?

Click to expand...

Maybe it is pretend. Maybe we should just be happy with the choice we have before us. But I'm not happy with that choice. It doesn't work for me, it's a terrible crippled choice. I could only get on the Trump Train if bound and dragged and drugged.