Elections GOP 2016 Primary Thread V4: Can Trump be Trumped Edition

[Anung Un Rama]

I heard Rand on a local talk radio show in the way home from work, he made a lot of points that could really ruin Trump if the next debate lent itself to a more open format than were used to seeing.

 

[2GunTommy]

Yes, it is "stupid". One of the biggest gripes Trump supporters think this election should be about is getting back manufacturing jobs that are dying off. Like I mentioned machinery is replacing labor every day with that and it ultimately will made it a non-issue. But continue to complain and act like we can fight against technological advances and free market decisions by both the companies AND consumers which you ignore.

1.40 instead of 1.00 for widget. You claim people wouldn't care but that's a flat out lie. People completely know the products they buy today. It's thrown in our faces each and every day what company uses china and its still labeled. Plus, we have companies that advertise "Made in USA". Why haven't cosumers all flocked to purchase from these companies since they don't care about the price increase? The answer is they do care and you make a very very huge assumption to believe they don't that truly defies what we witness today.



Wrong. We just talked about this. Lower production costs have been passed over to the consumer. The company likely profits more as well. Also, even if the company were to solely make profit from it, that is a US company making the profit which means more investment and tax revenue.



You again ignore the lower costs. People have a lower cost of living because of outsourcing this part of production and to go against it is fighting the market. You don't fight against the tide like an idiot and drown. You go with it and find ways to make it work to your advantage. That's what US companies have done.



That wasn't a point I was arguing and that actually is already happening. Some companies are investing in more high end machinery in the US projecting energy costs are lower. They have no reason to stay in China if they are just using machinery and the biggest factor then becomes who has the cheaper energy costs. Again, this is a free market decision that ends up tilting in our favor. You can't pick and choose the good ones.

The thing is though, like I've stated, this doesn't bring in all the jobs you're talking about. The people making these machines are already in the US.



Oh god, man. You really are becoming a stereotype of a protectionist. I say a benefit of free trade that applies to all countries and you somehow turn in into fearful restraint that has somehow been placed on us. I can't even wrap my mind around how twisted your thinking is with this reply right now so yes, you are misunderstanding me cause you seem unaware of mutual prosperity and replace it with overwhelming insecurity.

My point: Free trade benefits both nations in the respect they are less likely to engage in war because of the mutual prosperity.

Your thinking: Free trade gives leverage to other countries because we won't want to attack them and is thus a bad thing.

I'm sorry but it's completely too clear here what's going on and it's cringe worthy.



Yes it completely is. You don't understand BOTH COUNTRIES GAIN. BOTH. FUCKING BOTH DO.

This is completely your logic here.
Free Trade- BOTH country gains
No Trade- Neither country gains
"Well I don't want the other country to have gains so I think it's best we do option 2"

I'm taking this chart from the wikileaks topic because it's completely what I meant with econ 101.

Please study it. There is a guaranteed societal loss with tariffs and not engaging in free trade. China is only fucking themselves by not doing it but they have other reasons they can't which are political and actually reflect that their institutions are in many ways too weak to benefit from such a simple concept that you also cannot seem to grasp.


I don't like posting Youtube videos usually but it may help a lot.
[YT]dSQTbd2iJtY[/YT]



Also, I apologize for any of this post you may take personally. I truly am not trying to go after you or anyone in this forum personally. I can get heated at times over a discussion and do try to refrain from name calling, etc because it usually completely steers the conversation off the intended purpose. Sometimes, it does leak though and I assure you, the anger in any of these posts right now is an anger for Trump and not yourself. I wish you well and appreciate this discussion.

No worries, i dont take much too personal at all in these discussions. I dont even care much if i get flamed by anyone. Its the War Room after all and people are often emotionally invested in their stances. You are obviously someone who takes the time to educate himself politically and economically whether it be on a formal or recreation level and i also appreciate the conversation. Although we might end up agreeing to disagree on some things.

Yes machinery is eliminating some jobs, that is a fact however factories are still being moved out of the US for cheaper labor to operate that machinery,cheaper taxes and real estate costs, so we still lose even more than just what the machinery replaces.

I understand that people want to pay 40 cents less for a widget and will ignore an American made product to do so. My point is that i dont want that to be an option. I want the foreign made widget to be taxed in such a way as to make it the same price as the American made one. At that point people will choose the one made here. I could care less if some short sided ignorant consumers complain they cant buy cheaply made chinese crap for a lower price anymore. I dont want that to be an option. Again I believe people in the US keeping jobs is more important for the economy than cheap widgets.

As far as the company being the only one that profits still being ok because it results in more tax revenue, well i still dont see how that is more beneficial to the economy and the people than keeping some of those jobs here.

People have a lower cost of living due to outsourcing ? Well people have a lower standard of living because of outsourcing when they lose their jobs because of it. Again i always feel the bigger picture is keeping more jobs here.

About the war deterrent issue,I was thinking you were saying that other countries would be more likely to want to go to war with us if we werent actively trading with them and my response was basically i couldnt care less. I would still keep jobs here regardless of who was butthurt because of it. And anyway we still would be trading with other countries, just not giving up as many jobs.

And my logic is more along the lines of

Increased imbalance in Free trade=more benefit to the corporations and foreign countries while Americans lose out.

More balanced free trade=still profits for both countries but maybe a little less for the corporations and Americans not losing out.

In the end i feel it comes down to this. Corporations can make more money by moving operations out of the country so they do just that. However While the American corporation doing this does profit more and maybe does pay more tax revenue, that still results in enough increased job losses that it has a negative impact on The Americans quality of life and the American economy as a whole. In order to accomplish this they have to lobby (basically pay bribes) to government officials to create an environment that allows them to do this (no huge tariffs). They do this successfully and then our government officials have to convince the unions and American workers that somehow this will be good for them.

This is exactly what the car companies did, also Caterpillar. Thats why i brought them up before. What happened ? Well those people all lost jobs and had to go on some government funded job ins that i cant remember the name of now. Close to 1 million jobs were lost to NAFTA in the years to follow. Then these previously skilled workers had to enter the job market for less skilled menial lower paying jobs, which flooded the market and actually drove wages in that market down.

My answer (Trumps answer) is to stop this from happening by putting enough tariffs on American companies who are manufacturing out of the country to the point where it is no longer beneficial to do so. Basically force them to stay here. I firmly believe that they will not go out of business because we wont allow foreign companies to undercut American companies, again with tariffs. How will this not work ? Doing business with the American people is something no corp would ever turn down. they will stay here, Americans will receive more jobs. The only thing that is in the way of this happening is not global economics, but corporate greed and corrupt politicians. Will foreign countries then hit us with higher tariffs than they are now due to this move ? Maybe, but i still see us winning that war in the end. We are the superpower. If they want to continue to do business with us then they will have to suck it up.

 

[Lead]

PPP Poll 8/28-8/30 Trump re surges from brief drop

Trump 29
Carson 15
Bush 9
Fiorina 8
Rubio 7
Cruz 6
Kasich 6
Huckabee 5
Walker 5
Christie 2
Santorum 2
Paul 1
Perry 1
Jindal 0
Pataki 0

RCP has dropped Graham from their chart entirely. I think he's polled 0 consistently enough that they dropped it.

 

[speakhandsforme]

I'm several beers deep, so I'm posting here to remind myself to read Lead's novel-esque post.

 

[Diamond Jim]

If by now you don

 

[Lead]

I'm several beers deep, so I'm posting here to remind myself to read Lead's novel-esque post.

Nothing good ever happens when I drink and post. I accidentally had some drinks this week after having a caffeine pill and felt fucked for the next 5 hours. It's like it intensified both the caffeine and the alcohol at the same time.

I'm very bad at condensing an arguments and often find other posters or people who argue it in half the time I needed. I'm an accountant damn it.

 

[Andy Capp]

I misclicked. My vote should be considered wasted.

 

[Lead]

And my logic is more along the lines of

Increased imbalance in Free trade=more benefit to the corporations and foreign countries while Americans lose out.

More balanced free trade=still profits for both countries but maybe a little less for the corporations and Americans not losing out.

I can see that point but I would argue if Country A tariffs Country B and Country B doesn't tariff Country A, the most benefit would go to Country B. Again, this is a very simplified example and there would be exceptions. Another moving part with trade is the countries interference with their industry.

Here is an example of where a tariff makes sense and it's from past experience for the US. The TV industry is almost completely owned right now by Asia because of "dumping". It's when a country subsidized companies in an industry to make a product and sell it for far below the price it cost to make the good. As a result, other companies in the industry can't compete and die out. Once they die, the subsidy is slow taken away and the country stands with a near monopoly of an industry. Actions like this should be taken action against.

There are many other examples you can look at and it tends to make trade deals very complicated. The main point however, is to open both markets to each other with the same standard/rules to follow. The problem when these deals happen is people either argue, "look, they are taking our jobs" (the free market arguement) or "look, these rules agreed upon each country are fucked up" (usually a sovereignty fear type argument). Both really don't give enough credibility to go against the enormous benefits of these deals.

No worries, i dont take much too personal at all in these discussions. I dont even care much if i get flamed by anyone. Its the War Room after all and people are often emotionally invested in their stances. You are obviously someone who takes the time to educate himself politically and economically whether it be on a formal or recreation level and i also appreciate the conversation. Although we might end up agreeing to disagree on some things.

Yes machinery is eliminating some jobs, that is a fact however factories are still being moved out of the US for cheaper labor to operate that machinery,cheaper taxes and real estate costs, so we still lose even more than just what the machinery replaces.

I understand that people want to pay 40 cents less for a widget and will ignore an American made product to do so. My point is that i dont want that to be an option. I want the foreign made widget to be taxed in such a way as to make it the same price as the American made one. At that point people will choose the one made here. I could care less if some short sided ignorant consumers complain they cant buy cheaply made chinese crap for a lower price anymore. I dont want that to be an option. Again I believe people in the US keeping jobs is more important for the economy than cheap widgets.

As far as the company being the only one that profits still being ok because it results in more tax revenue, well i still dont see how that is more beneficial to the economy and the people than keeping some of those jobs here.

People have a lower cost of living due to outsourcing ? Well people have a lower standard of living because of outsourcing when they lose their jobs because of it. Again i always feel the bigger picture is keeping more jobs here.

About the war deterrent issue,I was thinking you were saying that other countries would be more likely to want to go to war with us if we werent actively trading with them and my response was basically i couldnt care less. I would still keep jobs here regardless of who was butthurt because of it. And anyway we still would be trading with other countries, just not giving up as many jobs.



In the end i feel it comes down to this. Corporations can make more money by moving operations out of the country so they do just that. However While the American corporation doing this does profit more and maybe does pay more tax revenue, that still results in enough increased job losses that it has a negative impact on The Americans quality of life and the American economy as a whole. In order to accomplish this they have to lobby (basically pay bribes) to government officials to create an environment that allows them to do this (no huge tariffs). They do this successfully and then our government officials have to convince the unions and American workers that somehow this will be good for them.

This is exactly what the car companies did, also Caterpillar. Thats why i brought them up before. What happened ? Well those people all lost jobs and had to go on some government funded job ins that i cant remember the name of now. Close to 1 million jobs were lost to NAFTA in the years to follow. Then these previously skilled workers had to enter the job market for less skilled menial lower paying jobs, which flooded the market and actually drove wages in that market down.

My answer (Trumps answer) is to stop this from happening by putting enough tariffs on American companies who are manufacturing out of the country to the point where it is no longer beneficial to do so. Basically force them to stay here. I firmly believe that they will not go out of business because we wont allow foreign companies to undercut American companies, again with tariffs. How will this not work ? Doing business with the American people is something no corp would ever turn down. they will stay here, Americans will receive more jobs. The only thing that is in the way of this happening is not global economics, but corporate greed and corrupt politicians. Will foreign countries then hit us with higher tariffs than they are now due to this move ? Maybe, but i still see us winning that war in the end. We are the superpower. If they want to continue to do business with us then they will have to suck it up.

Okay, I can accept our priorities are different. I definitely approach a lot of issues from perspective of driving down costs and finding long term plans that fit America to compete in a global market. You obviously have more importance on labor compared to the previous. I can understand that. I would argue for this instance however, that a long term plan is looking at somewhere we are far more competitive and capitalizing on it. There are many other industries/processes that our companies frankly dominate and it makes more sense to me to push at things that benefit those groups then fight against one that doesn't make sense free market wise.


With all this said, I've been wondering where you (and actually Trump) stand on the issue of unions. It's the closest domestic issue I can think of that mirrors the trade/tariff issue between countries. Unions favor the priority of labor over costs/efficiency in the market.

Also, what is your position on abolishing a minimum wage

 

[Diamond Jim]

Trump has signed the RNC pledge to not run as a third party.

 

[2GunTommy]

I can see that point but I would argue if Country A tariffs Country B and Country B doesn't tariff Country A, the most benefit would go to Country B. Again, this is a very simplified example and there would be exceptions. Another moving part with trade is the countries interference with their industry.

Here is an example of where a tariff makes sense and it's from past experience for the US. The TV industry is almost completely owned right now by Asia because of "dumping". It's when a country subsidized companies in an industry to make a product and sell it for far below the price it cost to make the good. As a result, other companies in the industry can't compete and die out. Once they die, the subsidy is slow taken away and the country stands with a near monopoly of an industry. Actions like this should be taken action against.

There are many other examples you can look at and it tends to make trade deals very complicated. The main point however, is to open both markets to each other with the same standard/rules to follow. The problem when these deals happen is people either argue, "look, they are taking our jobs" (the free market arguement) or "look, these rules agreed upon each country are fucked up" (usually a sovereignty fear type argument). Both really don't give enough credibility to go against the enormous benefits of these deals.







Okay, I can accept our priorities are different. I definitely approach a lot of issues from perspective of driving down costs and finding long term plans that fit America to compete in a global market. You obviously have more importance on labor compared to the previous. I can understand that. I would argue for this instance however, that a long term plan is looking at somewhere we are far more competitive and capitalizing on it. There are many other industries/processes that our companies frankly dominate and it makes more sense to me to push at things that benefit those groups then fight against one that doesn't make sense free market wise.


With all this said, I've been wondering where you (and actually Trump) stand on the issue of unions. It's the closest domestic issue I can think of that mirrors the trade/tariff issue between countries. Unions favor the priority of labor over costs/efficiency in the market.

Also, what is your position on abolishing a minimum wage

See i would have thought country A would benefit more from your scenario ? But after reading your whole post i see what you mean.

Never heard of "dumping" sounds like something the chinese govt would do. Bastards. I would tariff the shit out of them :icon_lol:

And i see where you are coming from a little better when you talk about our different priorities. If bringing costs down are the priority then i definitely understand your stance. And i definitely cant argue with wanting to capitalize on areas we are already dominant.

As you probably can guess I am mostly pro union (i hope Trump is also). I feel like unions are what keeps the workers from being over worked under paid slaves to the system. However i definitely see where there has to be a balance and they dont become so demanding that they put companies under. Being in a union doesnt help if your company closes down.

And as far as eliminating minimum wage, well i fear that would just allow companies to lower wages. Once one lowered wages, all others would quickly follow. So you wouldnt be able to go work for the other guy who paid more because why would he ? The people need some govt protection. But im not sure i agree with raising it through the roof either. For example raising it to $15 an hour as some have proposed i feel would be too much. Small business owners would be forced to let a few people go and work 90hrs a week themselves to cut costs. Then we lose jobs. I am definitely for anything that creates jobs for the middle class. Even if it makes some things cost more. I feel that a strong working middle class with low unemployment is the backbone of a country. I feel that the US has gone too far in favoring corporations and the upper class these days. Kind of the whole oligarchy thing.

 

[Lead]

Trump signs GOP loyalty pledge

Donald Trump and Reince Priebus have a deal.
The Republican front-runner announced at a press conference on Thursday that he signed the loyalty pledge the GOP sought and will support the eventual Republican nominee, whoever that may be.
The deal, which was announced after a private meeting with Priebus in New York regarding a party-sponsored pledge that candidates will support the nominee, is a winner for Trump. In the short term, it clears the way for his name to appear on primary ballots and addresses the concerns of Republican voters turned off by his initial unwillingness to pledge his fealty to the party.

How Trump Exposed the Tea Party

Here are some of the things that have been said by the guy who has galvanized the GOP

 

[Lead]

See i would have thought country A would benefit more from your scenario ? But after reading your whole post i see what you mean.

Never heard of "dumping" sounds like something the chinese govt would do. Bastards. I would tariff the shit out of them :icon_lol:

And i see where you are coming from a little better when you talk about our different priorities. If bringing costs down are the priority then i definitely understand your stance. And i definitely cant argue with wanting to capitalize on areas we are already dominant.

As you probably can guess I am mostly pro union (i hope Trump is also). I feel like unions are what keeps the workers from being over worked under paid slaves to the system. However i definitely see where there has to be a balance and they dont become so demanding that they put companies under. Being in a union doesnt help if your company closes down.

And as far as eliminating minimum wage, well i fear that would just allow companies to lower wages. Once one lowered wages, all others would quickly follow. So you wouldnt be able to go work for the other guy who paid more because why would he ? The people need some govt protection. But im not sure i agree with raising it through the roof either. For example raising it to $15 an hour as some have proposed i feel would be too much. Small business owners would be forced to let a few people go and work 90hrs a week themselves to cut costs. Then we lose jobs. I am definitely for anything that creates jobs for the middle class. Even if it makes some things cost more. I feel that a strong working middle class with low unemployment is the backbone of a country. I feel that the US has gone too far in favoring corporations and the upper class these days. Kind of the whole oligarchy thing.

Why are you supporting Trump and not Bernie Sanders? What would you say doesn't align you best with Warren or Sanders compared to Trump. Is it solely immigration?

 

[5H3RD0G]

Trump seems to be the GOP front runner the rest seem lost in what they are trying to accomplish only the HP lady has a chance. :icon_chee

 

[2GunTommy]

Why are you supporting Trump and not Bernie Sanders? What would you say doesn't align you best with Warren or Sanders compared to Trump. Is it solely immigration?

Yes immigration. And youre right i do like Bernie and Warren for some issues. Both of their speeches on the TPP made me want to stand and cheer. But Bernies solution to illegal immigration seems to be just make them all legal and have no borders. And free college tuition for everyone ? Seems like you would have to raise taxes through the roof to pay for that and it doesnt seem necessary. We already have student financial aid for those who qualify. Honestly so far ive felt like Trump satisfies the best of both worlds for me. Kind of.

 

[Lead]

How to kill an agency

The Department of Veterans Affairs has roots in the earliest days of the republic, and it

 

[Lead]

Yes immigration. And youre right i do like Bernie and Warren for some issues. Both of their speeches on the TPP made me want to stand and cheer. But Bernies solution to illegal immigration seems to be just make them all legal and have no borders. And free college tuition for everyone ? Seems like you would have to raise taxes through the roof to pay for that and it doesnt seem necessary. We already have student financial aid for those who qualify. Honestly so far ive felt like Trump satisfies the best of both worlds for me. Kind of.

I find it funny how the parties seem to go completely reverse when it comes to immigration. You'd think the Democratic party would run on protecting labor by keeping borders closed and Republicans would run on more open borders because of free market policies but it doesn't seem to go that. way.

 

[Unity]

[YT]G59mNNfLZx8[/YT]

 

[Lustercross]

I might be wrong but I think what Bernie wants is to close the borders but legalize everyone that is already in here for humanitarian reasons and so they pay taxes. I think he just doesn't advertise the idea of closing the border because of potential voters. I might be wrong but I thought I read that somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Lead]

Media seems to be having a hayday with this

Is Donald Trump Still Donald Trump If He Has a Deal With the Establishment?

When Don*ald Trump an*nounced his pres*id*en*tial cam*paign here in June, pledging to be

 

[2GunTommy]

I find it funny how the parties seem to go completely reverse when it comes to immigration. You'd think the Democratic party would run on protecting labor by keeping borders closed and Republicans would run on more open borders because of free market policies but it doesn't seem to go that. way.

I might be wrong but I think what Bernie wants is to close the borders but legalize everyone that is already in here for humanitarian reasons and so they pay taxes. I think he just doesn't advertise the idea of closing the border because of potential voters. I might be wrong but I thought I read that somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.

LEAD- you would think but it seems that both sides are really working towards open borders with few exceptions. The dems so that they can build their voting base with newly arrived latinos and the repubs so that they can receive more immigrant workers at depressed wages. Sure the repubs talk about closing borders but it seems what they say and actually do are two different things. Thats why i like Trump because i feel he is the only repub that isnt owned by wall street and big business who benefit from open borders. Same with the dems talking about protecting the American worker, sounds good but keeping the borders open is pretty contradictory to that goal. They are willing to sacrifice the American worker for more latino democratic voters.

LUSTER- Looks like you are right on that one bud.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...open-borders-at-hispanic-chamber-of-commerce/

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) found himself at odds with some immigration reform advocates Thursday, defending his 2007 vote against a comprehensive immigration bill and telling an audience hosted by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that "open borders" were a threat to American jobs."
Sanders, who supported the 2013 version of immigration reform, had already waded into a moral and economic fight inside the Democratic Party. The latest round began with an interview with Vox's Ezra Klein, who asked if Sanders could favor "sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders."

"The Vermont senator vehemently disagreed. "That's a Koch brothers proposal," he said. "What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that.

Many progressives do believe in that. They've argued for it, in the face of opposition from many labor unions. In the run-up to Sanders's appearance, Democrats who want to blunt his campaign had circulated the Vox interview and excerpts from his old statements about immigration and protectionism. When reporters were invited to ask questions, all but one asked about immigration. CNN's Dan Merica read back some of Sanders's quotes about the 2007 immigration bill and invited the senator to respond.

“My concern about the bill that I voted against,” said Sanders, “was that there was too much emphasis on bringing low-wage workers into this country. What I want to see, and what is better about the recent bill, is a pathway toward citizenship, which is absolutely essential.”

 

[Lead]

[YT]G59mNNfLZx8[/YT]

Stay in your own threads with your antisemitism

 

[Lead]

Donald Trump's building a long-term operation

Donald Trump’s eccentric presidential run is looking more like a standard campaign every day.
While his Republican rivals have been hoping that Trump’s candidacy would fade after the initial buzz died down, he remains in first in the polls even after coming down from his September peak. Meanwhile, his campaign has been building the infrastructure necessary to put up a real fight in the earliest primaries and beyond.

Trump triples down on George W. Bush’s responsibility for 9/11

Donald Trump says he doesn’t flat out blame former president George W. Bush that the Sept. 11 terror attacks happened on his watch. But he can think of three reasons why one could hold Bush responsible.

And, he might add, they are three things a President Trump would do very differently.

“You always have to look to the person at the top,” Trump said Saturday in a telephone interview. “Do I blame George Bush? I only say that he was the president at the time, and you know, you could say the buck stops here.”

Cruz: Trump's campaign helping mine

Donald Trump’s bid for the White House is really helping Sen. Ted Cruz’s own campaign, the Texas senator says.
Both Trump and Cruz have built their candidacies for the Republican presidential nomination around strong anti-establishment personas, regularly highlighting clashes with Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington. And Cruz says that has helped him.

 

[Lead]

Trump's Speech Announcing Loyalty Pledge

[YT]Y1hG4tTJXq8[/YT]

 

[Lead]

Marco Rubio's wake-up call

The hype surrounding Marco Rubio's presidential campaign just smashed into the wall of reality.
First, the Florida senator's team insisted it had stashed more campaign cash in the bank than fellow Floridian Jeb Bush -- only it hadn't. The campaign also told reporters it had raised $6 million in the last fundraising quarter -- also not true. That turned out to be an overly generous rounding of the underwhelming real figure: $5.7 million.

 

[Dalarna3]

Can't stump the Trump.

 

[Lead]

Ben Carson Is Following Jimmy Carter’s Presidential Playbook

Seems like National Journal doesn't want previews of their articles outside of their site. When I copy it, it puts "*" between letters in words. Click the link if you're interested in the read.

 

[Ayin]

How Trump Exposed the Tea Party

Interesting article.

If Trump actually wins the Republican nomination or even comes in a reasonably close second... I don't see how one could possibly even define what it is that a Republican supporter WANTS (other than to not vote Democrat). I'll admit I'm not following any of this very closely, but I don't see how much of anything Trump says aligns him with being a Republican.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Marco Rubio's wake-up call

Is 6 million dramatically different than 5.7?

 

[JDragon]

Shit is getting real. It will take an outstanding campaign to trump the Trump.

 

[Lead]

Is 6 million dramatically different than 5.7?

I've heard a few media outlets give him flack over this. Im not sure if it's really justified. It is true though that he isn't bringing in enough for his rise in the polls. He recently has gotten a billionaire possibly backing him (something he was missing compared to most candidates) and also have reported much better online donations. We will have to wait and see about that though. Carson's SuperPAC's were bringing in good money even at the beginning of 2015 and now his own campaign is leading in contributions.

 

[Lead]

Interesting article.

If Trump actually wins the Republican nomination or even comes in a reasonably close second... I don't see how one could possibly even define what it is that a Republican supporter WANTS (other than to not vote Democrat). I'll admit I'm not following any of this very closely, but I don't see how much of anything Trump says aligns him with being a Republican.

They want "tough talk". In other words, be an asshole and they don't care what you'll actually do.

 

[Lead]

Carly Fiorina: Trump And Carson Afraid Of Three-Hour Debate

FOX News: Carly Fiorina said on The Kelly File tonight that her fellow Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson are complaining about the length of the upcoming CNBC debate because they're afraid of debating.

[YT]MchTGJlTLAc[/YT]

Completely agree

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Everyday there's a new 'This is the end of Trump' article.

With political predictions, there should be like what fighters have with Wins-Losses.

Journalists need to have this bracket (Nailed It - No Where Fucking Close).

Because I'm sure these articles are written by reporters that have predicted his political demise time and time again.

By the time Trump has a dip in polls, they'll be patting themselves on the back as if they've called it, that they're finally right. After a dozen swings at the bat, the baseball throws itself out of the ballpark, and the batter is sucking his own **** on the while running the bases.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

So whats the dirt on Calry Fiorina? I like her she seems like she's a relative straight shooter.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Everyone in the media is celebrating that Trump is signing the 'Loyalty Pedge' that he'd support the Republican nominee. Um... have they seen his poll numbers? He's obviously confident he's going to be the nominee.

And every one of the 16 candidates is signing the pledge, right?

That means they're pledging to support Trump if he's the nominee!

If I was an establishment Republican and would rather have the Democrat nominee being President, rather than Trump, I would run third party. By signing that pledge, they're elimating that as a possibility.

 

[Quipling]

So whats the dirt on Calry Fiorina? I like her she seems like she's a relative straight shooter.

She has been repeatedly caught in multiple untrue statements. Also, she's been terrible in every major executive position she has held, and has no qualifications other than those.

 

[bad seed]

Stay in your own threads with your antisemitism

haha his post history is hilarious. the only post he made that has nothing to do with Jews is about Sage Northcutt.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

She has been repeatedly caught in multiple untrue statements. Also, she's been terrible in every major executive position she has held, and has no qualifications other than those.

Thanks.

 

[Ayin]

Everyone in the media is celebrating that Trump is signing the 'Loyalty Pedge' that he'd support the Republican nominee. Um... have they seen his poll numbers? He's obviously confident he's going to be the nominee.

That's exactly what I thought. He was waiting to see if he was likely to be the nominee before making his decision. Now that he's signed on, he can use it as an example of 'look how good of a Republican I am!'

They want "tough talk". In other words, be an asshole and they don't care what you'll actually do.

I know these threads aren't about you, and I don't want to derail it, but I had thought when you started them that you were a Republican supporter. Are you dissapointed with how this election is going so far?

 

[Gervinho]

She has been repeatedly caught in multiple untrue statements. Also, she's been terrible in every major executive position she has held, and has no qualifications other than those.

Isnt there a video of her making bitchy comments about her opponents looks while crying about Dr Trump making fun of her look?