same reason Trump ignores Hillary but spends his attack time on Scott Walker
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
You don't get much more establishment than the Wall Street Journal. William Galston is one of their columnists. Seems like a sour guy, but whatever, here's how the establishment/Galston sees it:
After their first presidential debates, it is time for Republicans to get serious. Donald Trump won’t be their nominee. Neither will Ben Carson. Nor will any of the men in the 5 p.m. undercard event last week. Despite Carly Fiorina’s strong performance, it is hard to believe that the GOP would turn to someone who was fired as Hewlett-PackardHPQ-2.51%’s CEO in 2005 after a tenure charitably described as controversial, and whose only run for elective office resulted in a landslide loss in 2010 to Sen. Barbara Boxer in California.
There are only five candidates with a plausible path to the Republican nomination: two sitting senators ( Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz), two sitting governors ( Scott Walker and John Kasich), and a former governor ( Jeb Bush). They represent a choice among very different persons, but also—and more fundamentally—between competing strategies for the future of the Republican Party.....
From a Democratic standpoint, a moderate-conservative Republican ticket representing the two largest swing states would be cause for concern. In fact, Bush-Kasich would be scary, and Kasich-Rubio even more so.
So, Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Walker and Cruz. Replace Cruz with Forina, and you have the 5 that I'd prefer produce the ticket in some form. Fiorina is clearly only a VP candidate, and as much as I want to like Rubio, you might say the same about him. The more I see, the more a Kasich/Rubio tickets appeals......
After their first presidential debates, it is time for Republicans to get serious. Donald Trump won’t be their nominee. Neither will Ben Carson. Nor will any of the men in the 5 p.m. undercard event last week. Despite Carly Fiorina’s strong performance, it is hard to believe that the GOP would turn to someone who was fired as Hewlett-PackardHPQ-2.51%’s CEO in 2005 after a tenure charitably described as controversial, and whose only run for elective office resulted in a landslide loss in 2010 to Sen. Barbara Boxer in California.
There are only five candidates with a plausible path to the Republican nomination: two sitting senators ( Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz), two sitting governors ( Scott Walker and John Kasich), and a former governor ( Jeb Bush). They represent a choice among very different persons, but also—and more fundamentally—between competing strategies for the future of the Republican Party.....
From a Democratic standpoint, a moderate-conservative Republican ticket representing the two largest swing states would be cause for concern. In fact, Bush-Kasich would be scary, and Kasich-Rubio even more so.
So, Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Walker and Cruz. Replace Cruz with Forina, and you have the 5 that I'd prefer produce the ticket in some form. Fiorina is clearly only a VP candidate, and as much as I want to like Rubio, you might say the same about him. The more I see, the more a Kasich/Rubio tickets appeals......
And just how much farther left is he than Obama? What position does Sanders advocate that would make B. Hussein say "whoa, that's a bridge too far for me!!"
Yes, it is very sad what has happened to the people of this country that are working and trying to survive or live the American dream....
You might say (and it is too sad.) the United States is being hit with so many left's they are begging for a right....
I think they do, but probably don't care as long as he continues to say what they want to hear.
I think they are hoping he will do some of what he is saying. That'd be a first. Well maybe a first in a long while...
and exactly what is he saying he'll do? Build a magical wall that will block tunnels and smuggling and all the other methods of getting into this country?
I have pretty low expectations for the American electorate, but the Trump numbers are shocking.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Neither side has effective leaders (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell) so voters are practically begging someone to step forward.
Trump hasn't really even articulated a single position yet and he somehow leads the polls; that's voter desperation.
Neither side has effective leaders (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell) so voters are practically begging someone to step forward.
Trump hasn't really even articulated a single position yet and he somehow leads the polls; that's voter desperation.
I respect Sanders much more than Obama for this very reason. Sanders is a far left radical/socialist. But at least he isn't one hidden in moderates clothing.
Obama was elected by repeating "hope and change" over and over. The handful of other promises (transparency, Im inexperienced, but ill ask smart people, etc), he broke almost immediately. So its not like there hasn't been a president elected without providing substance.
A large group of people at least want effort on the illegal immigration issue. Trump is basically the only one who can offer effort, without fear of political suicide; because he isn't a career politician. Career politicians are scared to touch this issue.
Its like the issues dont even matter. You claimed this, so I guess you are in that category?
The rise of Bernie Sanders shows that Hillary's campaign is a dumpster fire and is in a death spiral. Biden will be entering this thing very soon IMO. I'm not so sure that Obama isn't in the background undermining Hillary, perhaps making sure the FBI and Trey Gowdy have everything they need to drive the stake into the heart.
I think they did at first but their continued support shows how prideful people are in politics. Once they get behind a candidate it becomes a blood oath to defend (or ignore) every mistake and failure. It is way worse than sports even. Yeah Tubby and BCG had defenders till the end but most fans had a breaking point.
People not being able to criticize those on their ideological side is way more destructive than money.
I am not on the Trump band-wagon BUT for ANYONE to ask what Trump can do is assinine. The guy has done nothing BUT DO for his entire life. You may ask what he will do for this country. That is fair but the guy has a pretty good track record of doing...period. Whatever he has done he IS a doer. He really doesn't need to explain that. he has SHOWN that. Not many other politicians can say that.
You can knock him all you want about many things but to ask what he will do? The thing is he WILL do. What he will do you can question but he WILL do.
I'd really ask that of any other candidate before Trump. (What will he do? or, What is he saying he will do?)
Oh, and it's not about the money...
I don't care how far left he is. Sanders isn't bought, has an excellent record with veterans, and won't propose legislation based on a holy book.
Trump supporters live in an imaginary world. For example I heard him say yesterday that Ford just paid $2.5 Billion to build an auto plant in Mexico then said if he were President he would bring back that plant to Michigan (he was speaking in Michigan BTW), to which the moronic crowd applauded loudly.
Here is a clue for the uninformed Trump supporter. We have what is called a free enterprise system in this country. If Ford wants to build a plant in Mexico, and Mexico approves it they can. A "President" Trump cannot over rule that decision by executive order, nor can he order Nike to relocate it's shoe manufacturing to Seattle, or Apple to move their Iphone assembly to Cupertino, or the government of Mexico to build a fence for us. We are not Cuba or North Korea. We have 3 separate and coequal branches of government here.
The office of the presidency involves working with congress to get anything done. That involves a lot of schmoozing and massaging of egos and favor swapping. Something total foreign to Trumps vocabulary.
If Trump ever did take this job he would have a rude awakening his first day and would be pulling his hair out the second.
Here is a clue for the uninformed Trump supporter. We have what is called a free enterprise system in this country. If Ford wants to build a plant in Mexico, and Mexico approves it they can. A "President" Trump cannot over rule that decision by executive order, nor can he order Nike to relocate it's shoe manufacturing to Seattle, or Apple to move their Iphone assembly to Cupertino, or the government of Mexico to build a fence for us. We are not Cuba or North Korea. We have 3 separate and coequal branches of government here.
The office of the presidency involves working with congress to get anything done. That involves a lot of schmoozing and massaging of egos and favor swapping. Something total foreign to Trumps vocabulary.
If Trump ever did take this job he would have a rude awakening his first day and would be pulling his hair out the second.
FALSE. You better believe socialists have their own "holy books" they propose their legislation from.
Last edited:
"The office of presidency involves working with congress".
Obama would LOL at that notion and only the moderate deeeeee would even type that after the last 7 years.
PS - Trump is awful and I cracked up at Hannity last night trying to convince his panel that Trump was more specific in last night's interview with him. Ummm, no...... No he wasn't, Sean. It is going to be fun listening to Trump try to get more specific, though. Because he is going to have to the longer he goes.
Obama would LOL at that notion and only the moderate deeeeee would even type that after the last 7 years.
PS - Trump is awful and I cracked up at Hannity last night trying to convince his panel that Trump was more specific in last night's interview with him. Ummm, no...... No he wasn't, Sean. It is going to be fun listening to Trump try to get more specific, though. Because he is going to have to the longer he goes.
Didn't Obama try to stop Boeing from building a plant in South Carolina since it was going to be non union?
Edit: But backed off once his donors decided he didn't need to coerce Boeing with the NLRB anymore?
Edit: But backed off once his donors decided he didn't need to coerce Boeing with the NLRB anymore?
Couple of good laughs in this post:
"We have 3 separate and coequal branches of government here."
This is only in theory. Five members of the Supreme Court end up making our laws, often out of whole cloth, based on their political biases.
"The office of the presidency involves working with congress to get anything done."
Obama's second term has gotten his agenda done by pretty much ignoring Congress, using executive decisions. Accurately predicting he would do this, I didn't vote for him, even though I thought Romney was horrible. I'm thinking specifically of his de facto throwing open our borders to anyone who wants to come.
Whatever book he's using, he needs to keep it up. He's one of the few candidates that would help the middle class.
This is rich, given that youve dedicated your message board life to defending these very actions when Obama does them.
Of course an EO shouldnt be used. But Im guessing he means by enacting policies which would reward companies for keeping manufacturing in the US; undoing the damage Bill Clinton's NAFTA exacted on our country.
I don't think it matters "what Trump will do", meaning, I suppose, it's true that "the issues don't matter." I think for a chunk of people, he's not like them (other politicians), and that's enough.
Nate Silver made a good point today. Somewhere between 75 and 80% of Republican primary voters avowedly will not support Trump. But when that 80% is divided among 16 other people, it gives a false sense of standing.
Nate Silver made a good point today. Somewhere between 75 and 80% of Republican primary voters avowedly will not support Trump. But when that 80% is divided among 16 other people, it gives a false sense of standing.
You think the economy struggles now, wait until the business world gets a load of this guy.
Tax/soak the rich?
His election could trigger an instant recession.
Look at the GDP growth rates, tax rates, and unemployment rates since WWII for the socialist countries vs the US.
Kind of like when the hostages were released the Day RR was sworn in. I'd say almost that quick.
Interesting that the EPA seems to have been given a pass on the screw up out in Colorado.
Imagine if an oil company did that...
Imagine if an oil company did that...
He wants to make cuts to our ridiculous defense spending, establish universal healthcare, overturn Citizens United, end the "war on drugs," and supports prison reform. Furthermore, I believe he would be much more reluctant to send our armed forces into combat. Republicans seem to be looking for a reason to invade Iran, the way they reacted to the nuclear deal.
Republicans acted they way they did on the Iran Deal because it is a bad deal. Just ask Chuck Schumer.
How on earth does Bernie Sanders plan on "overturning Citizens United".
Or is that just one of those talking points people repeat and don't realize it's the US Constitution they're talking about.
But now that I type that, I guess the plan could just be to ignore the Constitution like Obama has done.
Or is that just one of those talking points people repeat and don't realize it's the US Constitution they're talking about.
But now that I type that, I guess the plan could just be to ignore the Constitution like Obama has done.
If it keeps us from invading Iran, I'm all for it. I can't help but notice that Schumer, Rubio, Cruz, J. Bush, Paul all have two things in common....they all criticize the deal with Iran, and none of them have served a single day in the military. Maybe if they knew what it was really like to fight a war, they'd be a lot more reluctant to send our troops into battle.
Meh, there isn't much of one left, after the Patriot Act. Obama is a failure for not repealing it. Hell, if that's all he did in 8 years, I'd call him a success.
Last edited:
They've served as much time as Obama who is on the other side of this. So how is that relevant to where one stands?
Similar threads
