I honestly would not have had a problem if John McCain or Mitt Romney would have won. I wish either of them were running this go-round- they'd most likely get my vote. Gary Johnson is a good choice.
It's not that I "hate" Trump so much as I "hate" anyone stupid enough to seriously support his bid for president. I don't "hate" the Jackass crew but you can bet that if Johnny Knoxville or Steve-O were running for president I would "hate" anyone who voted for them. Even considering someone like that for the highest office in the land is disrespectful to America. Hillary is a bad candidate as well, but at least she's a serious candidate. The difference being that if you support Hillary, I disagree with you, if you support Trump, I think you are mentally r****ded.
Say what you will, but Ms. Clinton will be a competent, but embattled President who manages the office to retain the status quo, much like Mr. Obama. I don't want an egomaniacal reality star foisting his embarrassing, all consuming identity on all Americans. I don't want a regressive trying to move the country backwards or impose theological tenets into secular law. If we can't move forward in history, I'd prefer to just stay like we are, things are OK.
The biggest problem that I see with Trump isn't his policies, because the one's he's put out are either vague or unworkable, but his governing style. A Trump presidency is going to be based off of a cult of personality that is going to be reminiscent to Putin's.
You have to look at track records. Most of his businesses don't last four years. Period. He likes to try things (steaks!) and see what it's like, and like a smart businessman (I said "like" not that he is), he'll fold up the shop if it doesn't look like it's working. How do you govern like that? It would be a disaster. "I'll appoint the best people." Who the hell would work with him? He can't offer them great salaries. He can't offer them good working conditions. You have to totally believe in your leader's competence to sign on to a lot of the executive posts. They are brutal and not very rewarding, hence the high turnover in senior staff in the last three long presidencies. What academic is going to advise Trump on international relations? Or who from among our security specialists is going to want to be talked down to by this loudmouth tweeter. LOL. What a nightmare. I'm all in for Rubio on that side of the aisle, like my conservative parents are now. I don't like a lot of his positions, to say the least, but he could actually not **** everything up in four years. He may have fooled me, but I think he's a decent human being who wants to make a positive difference in the world.
Only semirelated to the topic... my very conservative in-laws are visiting again (to watch my youngest play in the regional basketball playoffs) and I can tell they are seriously conflicted. They'd like to tout Ted Cruz but he is having a bad week and they are definitely worried whether he beats Trump. So they have started to point out all the smart things Trump says to go along with all the criticisms of that "criminal Clinton", that "socialist (they rarely mention him by name... I think my MIL doesn't even know his name)" and that "socialist Obama" for good measure. But the funny thing... they no longer watch Fox News. Instead, they found some even screwier news source ("One America News", or OAN) that appears to be filmed in someone's basement and is on a channel number like 113). I guess Fox News isn't extreme enough anymore... yikes, I can't even refer to them as "my Fox watching in-laws."
That's because they're not really his businesses - his primary business these days, along with reality tv, is licensing his name - so when you see "Trump" on vodka bottles or real estate developments or hotels or scam-online universities, that's what's happening. I don't know how much of his real estate "empire" remains under his control - I don't tihnk it's that much, the actual licensing company that sells his name that he controls is pretty tiny, just a handful of people.
I agree with this statement. My tweak on it is...if you vote for Trump or Cruz, I can't take you seriously. I think you have a mental problem.
My views are more aligned with Bernie than any other politician but if he doesn't make it as the Dem Candidate then I'd consider voting for Trump but only because he's anti-establishment not because I believe in any of the hate he's spewing or that he'd be a good leader at all. I just know I'd never vote for Hillary and I can't believe we might be headed for a Hillary v. Trump. Might be time for another write in vote for Willie Nelson.
Reality is starting to set in for me in that Kasich basically has no shot at the nomination. So I need to do a little more research on Rubio, I suppose. We need to do something to stop this Trump train before he actually wins the nomination. If it's Trump vs. Hillary? I'll just cast my vote for my write-in candidate: Spoiler
She's a pathological liar. I don't think she's capable of telling the truth. I think it comes from being a life long politician and saying anything she needs to say to be elected. I don't have any faith she has concerns for the well being of people in this country, gays, minorities, women... anyone. She doesn't care until she needs their vote.
I think her campaign has done a horrendous job in managing the Republican attacks (namely that she's an impulsive liar) against her but I'm curious as to where the pathological liar part comes from. Ted Cruz strikes as a pathological liar, Hillary not so much.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Well done, Internet. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GOPDebate?src=hash">#GOPDebate</a> <a href="https://t.co/OVCCk4lBlf">pic.twitter.com/OVCCk4lBlf</a></p>— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) <a href="https://twitter.com/ForAmerica/status/702173077501706240">February 23, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
All of these people are saying what they need to to get elected with the exception of Mr. Sanders who has a 40 year history of walking the walk. But pathological liar is a bit hyperbolic.
I just dont understand where this stream of lies are that have amounted to labeling her a pathological liar. I mean even Cruz doesn't get called that as frequently as Hillary. Its getting rather ridiculous now.
She lied about lying because she's incapable of telling the truth. Instead of telling the truth and saying, "yes I've told lies, I'm not proud of it but at times I've thought it was necessary to protect...." Problem is she truly believes she's never lied. That's pathological. As my grand father would have said... She'd rather climb a tree to tell a lie, than stand on the ground to tell the truth. :grin:
It's bizarre. I liked about a half dozen candidates in 2008. None this time around. The runners up in prior yrs must be shaking their heads in frustration. It's like a Steve Nash MVP year! Except that Nash is a good guy. Trump is....Trump Cruz's best attribute is that he isn't Trump Rubio's is that he isn't Cruz or Trump ...and Kasich -- that he isn't Trump, Cruz or Rubio -- and relatively unknown. But (IMO) he's a tea-party, bible thumping anti-women's rights nutter. Just under the wire, and underfunded. Likable enough since he doesn't stand a chance. And he doesn't. And on the Dem side... We have the angry old guy Bernie, with a string of promises he has absolutely no hope of delivering on (obamacare was minor league compared to his proposals). Zero foreign policy ideas, and domestic economic policy that I strongly disagree with. And Hillary -- who was my first choice in 2008, but is running a campaign that would make Al Gore shudder for its blandness and lack of inspiration, and who is(IMO) seriously compromised by the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of big bucks from foreign corps and governments (and Bills speaking fee career with the same conflict). UGHHHH!
