ADVERTISEMENT

Palin to Stump for Trump

What do you guys make of this?

blog_national_review_against_trump.jpg


I can't ever remember a prominent conservative publication coming out specifically against a Republican candidate.
More indication of the easy victory that Trump will have in the Primary election. The RNC is now backing him ... it's only been a matter of time. They finally figured out that Jeb/Rubio/Cruz don't have a shot.
 
Show me where Jeb is under FBI investigation like HRC.... I'll be waiting.
And, if he were, Jeb wouldn't be indicted just like Hillary won't.

Partisan blinders are heavy. And, the price you pay for them is more than I have to spare.
 
Geez, took you long enough to bring GWB into it. Congrats. Hey, did you hear Johnny Cash died?
I'm speaking of ALL of these bought-off statist liars. You only see corruption on your left. Meanwhile, your right foot is covered in it.
 
What do you guys make of this?

blog_national_review_against_trump.jpg


I can't ever remember a prominent conservative publication coming out specifically against a Republican candidate.

I got a good laugh out of it.

Basically, the establishment GOP, who in ages hasnt given us a true conservative leader or candidate (Romeny, McCain, McConnell, Ryan, Boehner, Rubio, Cruz, Jeb, etc) nor have they given uns a candidate who would fight the dems and expanding government, are claiming to be the voice of conservatives who oppose the democrats.

Its about as rich as it get and shows how fully unaware and arrogant these fools are.

I can promise you I would vote for Bernie over anyone other than Trump, and a lot of Trump supporters feel the same. Its just time for the establishment to be flushed. Their reign in power has given us a 3 political classes- the donor class, the governing class and the voters. And for years the voters have only been offered up candidates (on both sides) that have been thoroughly vetted by the donor class.

I think what we are now witnessing is the internet reaching its potential and hitting its full stride. No longer is the average OOTBer only given information approved by the donors and governing classes. We can get it on our own.

Think about it- years ago, there might have been some surface appeal to Bernie or Trump, but they would have received no coverage. Now with periscope we can watch rallies live and see there are a bunch of others who are interested too and word of mouth stimulates more curiosity, which leads to more rallies, etc. And we don't have to worry about misquotes- with twitter the candidate can speak for his or herself, without worrying how O'Reilly or Madow will spin it.

I am hopefully that the change that Obama promised 8 years ago is finally coming to fruition, even though I doubt it is the change he had in mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
the establishment GOP, who in ages hasnt given us a true conservative leader or candidate
This is exactly what I found so interesting about it. Trump and Cruz are running populist campaigns on the idea that the establishment does not present true conservatives, but the National Review's criticism of Trump is that he isn't really a conservative but an opportunist. Regardless of whether you think Trump would be a good president, I think that's a fair criticism.

Do you think Trump is a "true conservative" or just a break from the status quo? Or both?
 
Yeah... mortal enemies those two

2B2D969D00000578-3187853-image-a-3_1438949292756.jpg


trump_clinton.jpg

Who cares? He already said he bought her off. Which we all know he did- Trump is an opportunist, not an ideologue.

However Hillary hasn't been able to explain these pics- want to take a run at it for her?

clinton-cosby1.jpg


clinton-cosby.jpg
 
This is exactly what I found so interesting about it. Trump and Cruz are running populist campaigns on the idea that the establishment does not present true conservatives, but the National Review's criticism of Trump is that he isn't really a conservative but an opportunist. Regardless of whether you think Trump would be a good president, I think that's a fair criticism.

Do you think Trump is a "true conservative" or just a break from the status quo? Or both?

I'm not exactly sure what a true conservative is by your definition, but to me, it is limited government. Under that description, he's as conservative as any of them, if not more so.

But a lot of people think conservatism = Moral Majority. And I don't think he is in bed with that camp. For instance, he himself is pro-life (as am I). But I don;t think there should be laws against certain types of abortions. I am pro-gay marriage. I support legalization of drugs. I can go on and on, but you get the point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gteeitup
So, the Bush's have no blood of US Soldiers in their wake? Gotcha. I realize you're the typical right partisan disciple. That's fine. But, at least accept that you're contributing to the ever-dwindling choices of good leadership.

Picking between the Corleones or the Tatalias. Yay!

If you don't see the difference between declaring war with overwhelming support and deliberately turning a back to Americans under attack, then there probably isn't any point in discussion on this aspect of the topic.
 
If you don't see the difference between declaring war with overwhelming support and deliberately turning a back to Americans under attack, then there probably isn't any point in discussion on this aspect of the topic.
I see war in pretty much the same way, no matter how it's sold to the public. I'm not condoning either of them. I'm actually critical of both, equally. You should know that. Bush's, Clinton's... same old, same old.
 
I'm not exactly sure what a true conservative is by your definition, but to me, it is limited government. Under that description, he's as conservative as any of them, if not more so.

But a lot of people think conservatism = Moral Majority. And I don't think he is in bed with that camp. For instance, he himself is pro-life (as am I). But I don;t think there should be laws against certain types of abortions. I am pro-gay marriage. I support legalization of drugs. I can go on and on, but you get the point.
I agree with all of this.
 
I'm speaking of ALL of these bought-off statist liars. You only see corruption on your left. Meanwhile, your right foot is covered in it.

So... who you voting for Strum? Or pulling for as of now, or however you want to phrase it.

I can promise you I would vote for Bernie over anyone other than Trump, and a lot of Trump supporters feel the same. Its just time for the establishment to be flushed. Their reign in power has given us a 3 political classes- the donor class, the governing class and the voters. And for years the voters have only been offered up candidates (on both sides) that have been thoroughly vetted by the donor class.

I am hopefully that the change that Obama promised 8 years ago is finally coming to fruition, even though I doubt it is the change he had in mind.

I couldn't have said this better myself.
 
I see war in pretty much the same way, no matter how it's sold to the public. I'm not condoning either of them. I'm actually critical of both, equally. You should know that. Bush's, Clinton's... same old, same old.

So you are as critical of FDR or Woodrow Wilson as you are of Bush and Clinton?
 
So you are as critical of FDR or Woodrow Wilson as you are of Bush and Clinton?
Oh, yes. Wilson is a president I have the least respect for. He signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. WWI was no threat to the USA at all. The outcome of the First World War created a situation that gave rise to Hitler and Mussolini. Kind of like going into Iraq and toppling a regime and leaving gave rise to ISIS. It's one thing to defend your home, it;s another to send your military off to fight on foreign soil.

FDR not quite so much since we were militarily attacked by Japan and then Germany declared war ON the USA. Not much of a choice.

But, I still believe War is a Racket. It's old, wealthy men getting young, poor men to fight and die for their private property, power and influence. It's no big secret and it goes back thousands of years.
 
So... who you voting for Strum? Or pulling for as of now, or however you want to phrase it.



I couldn't have said this better myself.
I was impressed with 71's comments as well.


In the primaries? It's a tough call. I know Rand Paul is by far my preferred GOP candidate. I can only vote it one primary. I trust Paul. I actually trust Bernie Sanders MORE than I trust Rand Paul. I don't think Rand has a chance at winning SC. So, I will probably vote for Bernie in the democratic primary and help him beat Hillary. Clinton is such a shill that it's hard to find words to describe just how corrupt she really is. I want Sanders to win the Democratic nomination. If I thought Paul had a chance, I'd vote for him in the Republican primary.

In the general election I will be voting for Gary Johnson for sure. Same as 2012. He is an ideal candidate for president. I agree with almost all of his policies and ideas. Johnson would be great.
 
I remember 8 years ago a guy named Obama was an inexperienced Senator and doesn't have the experience to run this country. In 2016 a guy who has never been elected as a Politican in the United States is the front runner for a political party. Where are the Trump doesn't have experience to run thIs country comments we heard so much in 2008?
 
I remember 8 years ago a guy named Obama was an inexperienced Senator and doesn't have the experience to run this country. In 2016 a guy who has never been elected as a Politican in the United States is the front runner for a political party. Where are the Trump doesn't have experience to run thIs country comments we heard so much in 2008?
Trump has actually run businesses and made billions in the corporate world. Barry has still done nothing but non-profit community organizing and government for his entire career.

Fail.
 
Source Don't look now but Democratic voters with an X and Y chromosome don't like Hillary. Basically, Hillary is the candidate of well-off white women. I really hope the Dems are stupid enough to nominate her. Anyways, read on


There’s a lot of crazy stuff out there in the polling right now, and savvy consumers of polling should know better than to put too much stock in any single poll, or for that matter to get too carried away with primary polls, which have always been volatile and often been wrong. Still, some things in the polling bear watching, andthe latest Suffolk New Hampshire poll of the Democratic race features a gender gap so massive it should set off alarm bells for Hillary Clinton not just in the primary but potentially the general election.

Overall, the poll shows Hillary down 9 to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire, 50-41, which underlines the likelihood that Bernie has New Hampshire locked up, but is more realistic and less grisly for Hillary than the headline-grabbing 60-33 walloping reported by the recent CNN/ORC poll. Looking at the poll’s internal breakdowns, we see that Hillary’s “you go, girl” appeal to female voters is what’s keeping her in the game, as she has a significant 17-point lead among women, 54-37.


By journalistic conventions we’re supposed to call this a “gender gap” problem for Sanders, except that his lead among men is massively larger than Hillary’s among women – among male voters, Bernie beats Hillary 67-25, a ridiculous 42-point margin and one that is likely to set off new rounds of hand-wringing about the commitment to feminism of the “Bernie bro” voters (no, really, this is a thing). That’s not a gender gap, it’s a gender gulf. Nate Cohn noted a similar split the other day in one of the Iowa polls asking about perceptions of the candidates’ likelihood of winning the election.

Martin O’Malley also gets 8% of men in the poll, but just 1% of the ladies. If you include O’Malley, Hillary is up 54-38 with women, but down 75-25 among men. Fifty points.

Suffolk, by the way, is one of the more reputable New Hampshire pollsters, in a state that is notoriously rotten with bad polling due in part to its vast and unpredictable pool of independents. The poll has a lopsided gender split overall – 57% women, 43% men, and surprisingly no other options provided – but that mirrors the 2008 New Hampshire primary, when the Democratic primary electorate was 57% female (and the Republican electorate 57% male). The gender gap was real but less extreme then, as Hillary beat Obama and John Edwards in New Hampshire by winning women with 46% vs 34/15 Obama/Edwards while losing men with 29% vs 40/19 Obama/Edwards.

Assuming she’s the nominee (still a safe assumption), Hillary will have real appeal to some female voters on gender alone; this and her massive name recognition are almost the entire basis of her candidacy, which is certainly not based on any accomplishments in public life or great political skill on the trail. But if even Democratic men are easily peeled away from her in such massive numbers, a male GOP candidate – especially a vigorous young candidate like Cruz or Rubio – could expose quite how badly she turns off men.

A few other random tidbits from the Suffolk poll:

-63% of the likely Democratic primary voters surveyed were Democrats, 33% Independents, 3% Republicans.

-Among the voters surveyed, 7% might be convinced to vote in the GOP primary instead for John Kasich, 6% for Donald Trump, 3% for Jeb Bush, and 2% each for Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz; 73% were certain they could not be tempted to vote in the GOP primary. However, 20% allowed that they agreed with some of the things Trump is saying.

-18% still want Joe Biden to get in the race.

-1% of poll respondents had never heard of Barack Obama.
 
In the primaries? It's a tough call. I know Rand Paul is by far my preferred GOP candidate. I can only vote it one primary. I trust Paul. I actually trust Bernie Sanders MORE than I trust Rand Paul. I don't think Rand has a chance at winning SC. So, I will probably vote for Bernie in the democratic primary and help him beat Hillary. Clinton is such a shill that it's hard to find words to describe just how corrupt she really is. I want Sanders to win the Democratic nomination. If I thought Paul had a chance, I'd vote for him in the Republican primary.

In the general election I will be voting for Gary Johnson for sure. Same as 2012. He is an ideal candidate for president. I agree with almost all of his policies and ideas. Johnson would be great.

I like the Libertarian viewpoints. I agree with them frequently, it's too bad they never get more coverage, and the media perpetuates the 2 party system. I think a lot of people that want to see a shake-up, would align with Johnson, if they were only aware that he was even running. It really is a shame that only two parties get any airtime.

Your rationale for voting for Bernie over Clinton in the primary makes sense. I'm an "unenrolled" voter as well, so I can pick any one primary also. I'm not sure which I'll choose. I like Trump enough, and figure he'll win MA. I may take your approach and vote for Bernie to try to help him over Clinton in this state that will assuredly be blue in the general election. As I've stated before in this thread, I think Trump vs. Sanders is the best possible "Finals" for the country (at least of the realistic scenarios).
 
I like the Libertarian viewpoints. I agree with them frequently, it's too bad they never get more coverage, and the media perpetuates the 2 party system. I think a lot of people that want to see a shake-up, would align with Johnson, if they were only aware that he was even running. It really is a shame that only two parties get any airtime.

Your rationale for voting for Bernie over Clinton in the primary makes sense. I'm an "unenrolled" voter as well, so I can pick any one primary also. I'm not sure which I'll choose. I like Trump enough, and figure he'll win MA. I may take your approach and vote for Bernie to try to help him over Clinton in this state that will assuredly be blue in the general election. As I've stated before in this thread, I think Trump vs. Sanders is the best possible "Finals" for the country (at least of the realistic scenarios).

Voting for Johnson is like rooting for UNC-A in the NCAA tournament. It just doesn't matter, although it allows Strum to take the moral high ground and criticize everyone else.

There are 2 parties- if you want to cast a vote that has the potential to make a difference, pick one of the 2. However I also understand Strum's cynicism because rarely does it make a difference who is calling the shots- that person will just capitulate to the donor class.
 
I'm not exactly sure what a true conservative is by your definition, but to me, it is limited government. Under that description, he's as conservative as any of them, if not more so.

But a lot of people think conservatism = Moral Majority. And I don't think he is in bed with that camp. For instance, he himself is pro-life (as am I). But I don;t think there should be laws against certain types of abortions. I am pro-gay marriage. I support legalization of drugs. I can go on and on, but you get the point.

this is sorta the way i think, now...i am pro-choice though.

not sure what i'll do...probably sanders and then close my eyes.
 
Trump has actually run businesses and made billions in the corporate world. Barry has still done nothing but non-profit community organizing and government for his entire career.

Fail.

Let's see here.... You are compared running a "Business and Corporatation" to an entire country? That's a fail on your part. Trump has had a lot of failed projects as well. Done nothing? Or you just don't want to give Obama any credit because you don't like him. I agreed that Trump has been successful at a lot of things. See I could give credit where credit is due. But again comparing private organizations to a single Nation is crazy.
 
Let's see here.... You are compared running a "Business and Corporatation" to an entire country? That's a fail on your part. Trump has had a lot of failed projects as well. Done nothing? Or you just don't want to give Obama any credit because you don't like him. I agreed that Trump has been successful at a lot of things. See I could give credit where credit is due. But again comparing private organizations to a single Nation is crazy.

Name one thing Obama did before running for president. Just one.

Bonus points for private enterprise.
 
this is sorta the way i think, now...i am pro-choice though.

not sure what i'll do...probably sanders and then close my eyes.

I'm pro-choice too, as far as laws go. I would like to think I would be pro-life if it involved one of my family members.

Sanders is a kook, but he seems to be an honest one and not on anyone's payroll, which makes him #2 on my list.
 
Sanders is a kook, but he seems to be an honest one and not on anyone's payroll, which makes him #2 on my list.
I'm kind of fascinated by your stance on this, but I understand where you're coming from. I just don't think many people at all would list Trump and Sanders as their top 2. I really hope they end up in the general election together, though, because it would be such a stark choice. The billionaire vs. the anti-billionaire.
 
what's wrong with america, right here...^^^


Are you telling me that you would vote for a murderer over Trump? That's not what's wrong with America. That says you're a terrible person. Please tell me you're not a terrible person.
 


If I could vote for the Cookie Monster and be assured that a democrat wouldn't win, then yeah, sure, I'd throw away my vote. But my mission is to eliminate the democratic party every chance I get. I cannot roll the dice on a dem winning any office, any time. Their platform goes against everything I believe. So my vote, 9 times out of 10, is against the democratic party.
 
In so many ways.

Electing Obama paved the way for Trump, but Obamas attitude and performance accounts for Trumps popularity.


Completely agree. The office of the Presidency was dumbed down in 2008. When Obama won, it showed that any unqualified person could throw their name in and have a chance. Blame Trump on Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
I'm kind of fascinated by your stance on this, but I understand where you're coming from. I just don't think many people at all would list Trump and Sanders as their top 2. I really hope they end up in the general election together, though, because it would be such a stark choice. The billionaire vs. the anti-billionaire.

I'm just sick of hypocrites. Sanders wears his kook like a badge of honor. I much prefer that to Cruz, Hillary et al who talk like a reformists yet take in millions from Goldma Sachs, Citibank and their ilk.
 
Completely agree. The office of the Presidency was dumbed down in 2008. When Obama won, it showed that any unqualified person could throw their name in and have a chance. Blame Trump on Obama.

Except that 2016 Trump is many times more qualified than 2008 Obama.
 
If I could vote for the Cookie Monster and be assured that a democrat wouldn't win, then yeah, sure, I'd throw away my vote. But my mission is to eliminate the democratic party every chance I get. I cannot roll the dice on a dem winning any office, any time. Their platform goes against everything I believe. So my vote, 9 times out of 10, is against the democratic party.

Agreed, but # 10 out of 10 is Bernie, assuming he is running against an establishment Republican. But I would vote for Trump, Fiorina or Carson over Bern.
 
I'm kind of fascinated by your stance on this, but I understand where you're coming from. I just don't think many people at all would list Trump and Sanders as their top 2. I really hope they end up in the general election together, though, because it would be such a stark choice. The billionaire vs. the anti-billionaire.

Just to clarify, Bernie is #2 if running against an establishment GOPer. If he runs against a GOP outsider, I'm still going red.
 
Agreed, but # 10 out of 10 is Bernie, assuming he is running against an establishment Republican. But I would vote for Trump, Fiorina or Carson over Bern.


Bernie is not an establishment dem. So I give him credit for that. But he's a f*cking idiot. So the credit I just gave him, I just took away.
 
I'm just sick of hypocrites. Sanders wears his kook like a badge of honor. I much prefer that to Cruz, Hillary et al who talk like a reformists yet take in millions from Goldma Sachs, Citibank and their ilk.
I hear you. But as much as I detest Hillary, I don't know if I could physically perform the act of voting for Trump. If that's the general election matchup, I might just shoot myself in the balls and let the chips fall where they may. Why is it that every presidential election people are asking, "In a country of 300 million people, is this REALLY the best we can do?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: gteeitup
Why is it that every presidential election people are asking, "In a country of 300 million people, is this REALLY the best we can do?"

Because, for generations, people have accepted and voted for the lesser of two evils and it has degenerated over time. Hell, it may have been that way 100, 150, 200 years ago. The people in power are there for a reason.
 
Bernie is not an establishment dem. So I give him credit for that. But he's a f*cking idiot. So the credit I just gave him, I just took away.

Yes but they are all idiots. Is he a bigger idiot? Perhaps, but he is no hypocrite. So for that reason, I could vote for him.
 
I hear you. But as much as I detest Hillary, I don't know if I could physically perform the act of voting for Trump. If that's the general election matchup, I might just shoot myself in the balls and let the chips fall where they may. Why is it that every presidential election people are asking, "In a country of 300 million people, is this REALLY the best we can do?"

How can you possibly vote for Hillary?

Although I don't think you will have a chance- latest news shows she had HUMINT on her home brew, and that is as serious as it gets. People die when HUMINT gets exposed.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT