Top Ten Republicans Picked For Thursday Nights Debate

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]

Will not vote for any Democrat.

Will not vote for Jeb, Christie,or Trump.

I won’t stay home on election day, but I will leave the presidential column blank. [/quote]

When you think about it that’s really all Hillary wants you to do.
[/quote]

The only difference between Hillary and a RINO is the speed at which the country collapses. I don’t want to vote for a Republican that can easily be considered a “soft Democrat.” The results are the same. There needs to be actual opposition, or its useless.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not believe The Republican Party or the Democrat Party can capture so many people’s opinion so perfectly , eye roll . Trump is the only one that got it right , fuck the Republican Party and the democrats too , loyalty should be to America and this whole notion that the Republicans are more conservative than the democrats is ludicrous . Some one has taken the term Theocrat and exchanged that along with war mongering, pro wealth, anti poor to mean “CONSERVATIVE” conserve is the base word

con�??�??�?�·serve
verb
verb: conserve; 3rd person present: conserves; past tense: conserved; past participle: conserved; gerund or present participle: conserving
kənˈsərv/

1.
protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.
"the funds raised will help conserve endangered meadowlands"
    prevent the wasteful or harmful overuse of (a resource).
    "industry should conserve more water"
    synonyms:	preserve, protect, save, safeguard, keep, look after; More
    sustain, prolong, perpetuate;
    store, reserve, husband
    "fossil fuel should be conserved"
    antonyms:	squander
    Physics
    maintain (a quantity such as energy or mass) at a constant overall total.
    Biochemistry
    retain (a particular amino acid, nucleotide, or sequence of these) unchanged in different protein or DNA molecules.
    preserve (food, typically fruit) with sugar.

noun
noun: conserve; plural noun: conserves
ˈkÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¤nˌsərv,kənˈsərv/

1.
a sweet food made by preserving fruit with sugar; jam.
synonyms:	jam, preserve, jelly, marmalade
"cherry conserve"

then you add the suffix ative such as

Acetylative
Adumbrative
Adversative
Affirmative
Affricative
Aggregative
Alternative
Appellative
Applicative
Arbitrative
Associative
Assortative
Carminative
Circulative
Colligative
Combinative
Commutative
Comparative
Confutative
Connotative
Cooperative
Corporative
Correlative
Declarative
Deformative
Degradative
Delineative
Denigrative
Desiccative
Designative
Devastative

It does not change the definition just because the Republicans or the Democrats say it does

Conserve in the political realm is a fiscal term , nothing more , I know:) fuck you anyhow
[/quote]

No, “conservative,” in the political realm(in today’s USA), means something like, “One who wishes to keep things as they are, or perhaps as they were under the last Republican in the position in question.” “Liberal,” politically(in today’s USA), means, “One who wants to ensure that the government continues growing during the next term.” “Third party voter”(in today’s USA) means, “One who does not agree with the direction in which the country is headed but wants to give his stamp of approval to the process that has taken it there anyway.” There is talk of mandating voting. Now that suffrage is so widespread that it has no value, tell me which strategy is most effective.[/quote]

I can buy conserving status quo , but the term came about by conserving money.

The most effective conservative in my opinion would be one that progesses in policy to adapt to changing circumstances . So by definition a progressive conservative

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]

I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]

The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]

I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]

Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[/quote]

But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]

Trump is a businessman and he’d have the President of the United States in his pocket. The possibilities are endless really.[/quote]

I personally think trump is a whore but they all are , they are all selling America down the river and the majority of this board think that (R) makes it all right. Like it or not this election all about establishment or not . Megan Kelly wants to flex her muscle and bump Trump out of the running all by her self . That shows you how gullible America is

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]

I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]

The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]

I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]

Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[/quote]

But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]

Trump is a businessman and he’d have the President of the United States in his pocket. The possibilities are endless really.[/quote]

I personally think trump is a whore but they all are , they are all selling America down the river and the majority of this board think that (R) makes it all right. Like it or not this election all about establishment or not . Megan Kelly wants to flex her muscle and bump Trump out of the running all by her self . That shows you how gullible America is
[/quote]

LOL

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

And Treco is spot on. Fiorina is a non-starter. As a CEO she was a disaster. The day she resigned, HP stock jumped %7 adding $3B in market cap. HP rank and file openly celebrated, singing, “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead”.
[/quote]

Let me edit my comments by saying there is definitely a place in politics for Carly, just not the Presidency.

I’d love to see her as the head of the RNC.

[/quote]

Carly wore his fat ass out, unfortunately she will never get over the hump of outsourcing thousands of HP jobs to China.

That is what worked when she went against Barbara Boxer when Carly challenged her for the senate seat.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

As for the GOP being labeled the “stupid party” electorally, I’ve never heard of such phrase. If this is something that you have read recently please post the article I’d love to read it.

[/quote]

Not necessarily the stupid party, but close enough:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally think trump is a whore but they all are , they are all selling America down the river and the majority of this board think that (R) makes it all right. Like it or not this election all about establishment or not . Megan Kelly wants to flex her muscle and bump Trump out of the running all by her self . That shows you how gullible America is
[/quote]

Trump’s quote from the debate, and he got major points in my book for saying it. After he said it, Huckabee asked him for money. I don’t know if he was trying to be funny or what, but they are all whores except Trump who has his own money:

FOX News Brett Baier (talking to Trump): Now, 15 years ago, you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why arenâ??t you for it now?

TRUMP: As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age youâ??re talking about here.

What Iâ??d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if Iâ??m negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid.

You know why?

Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage. (uneasy laughter) But they have total control of the politicians. Theyâ??re making a fortune.

Get rid of the artificial lines and you will haveâ?¦yourself great plansâ?¦

BAIER: Mr. Trump, itâ??s not just your past support for single-payer health care. Youâ??ve also supported a host of other liberal policiesâ?¦.Youâ??ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, â??When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.â??

TRUMP: Youâ??d better believe it.

BAIER: â?? they do?

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage Iâ??ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

TRUMP: I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And thatâ??s a broken system.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

TRUMP: Well, Iâ??ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why?

She didnâ??t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didnâ??t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

BAIER: Hold onâ?¦…Weâ??re going to â?? weâ??re going to move on.â??

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not believe The Republican Party or the Democrat Party can capture so many people’s opinion so perfectly , eye roll . Trump is the only one that got it right , fuck the Republican Party and the democrats too , loyalty should be to America and this whole notion that the Republicans are more conservative than the democrats is ludicrous . Some one has taken the term Theocrat and exchanged that along with war mongering, pro wealth, anti poor to mean “CONSERVATIVE” conserve is the base word

con�??�??�??�??�?�·serve
verb
verb: conserve; 3rd person present: conserves; past tense: conserved; past participle: conserved; gerund or present participle: conserving
kənˈsərv/

1.
protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.
"the funds raised will help conserve endangered meadowlands"
    prevent the wasteful or harmful overuse of (a resource).
    "industry should conserve more water"
    synonyms:	preserve, protect, save, safeguard, keep, look after; More
    sustain, prolong, perpetuate;
    store, reserve, husband
    "fossil fuel should be conserved"
    antonyms:	squander
    Physics
    maintain (a quantity such as energy or mass) at a constant overall total.
    Biochemistry
    retain (a particular amino acid, nucleotide, or sequence of these) unchanged in different protein or DNA molecules.
    preserve (food, typically fruit) with sugar.

noun
noun: conserve; plural noun: conserves
ˈkÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¤nˌsərv,kənˈsərv/

1.
a sweet food made by preserving fruit with sugar; jam.
synonyms:	jam, preserve, jelly, marmalade
"cherry conserve"

then you add the suffix ative such as

Acetylative
Adumbrative
Adversative
Affirmative
Affricative
Aggregative
Alternative
Appellative
Applicative
Arbitrative
Associative
Assortative
Carminative
Circulative
Colligative
Combinative
Commutative
Comparative
Confutative
Connotative
Cooperative
Corporative
Correlative
Declarative
Deformative
Degradative
Delineative
Denigrative
Desiccative
Designative
Devastative

It does not change the definition just because the Republicans or the Democrats say it does

Conserve in the political realm is a fiscal term , nothing more , I know:) fuck you anyhow
[/quote]

No, “conservative,” in the political realm(in today’s USA), means something like, “One who wishes to keep things as they are, or perhaps as they were under the last Republican in the position in question.” “Liberal,” politically(in today’s USA), means, “One who wants to ensure that the government continues growing during the next term.” “Third party voter”(in today’s USA) means, “One who does not agree with the direction in which the country is headed but wants to give his stamp of approval to the process that has taken it there anyway.” There is talk of mandating voting. Now that suffrage is so widespread that it has no value, tell me which strategy is most effective.[/quote]

I can buy conserving status quo , but the term came about by conserving money.

The most effective conservative in my opinion would be one that progesses in policy to adapt to changing circumstances . So by definition a progressive conservative
[/quote]

No the political meaning of conservative did not come about with regards to preserving money. The origins of modern conservativism is found in the American and French revolution. What became known as conservatives where the more moderate liberals from that period, like Edmund Burke( Was member of the Whig party and wrote a book about the french revolution ) in England or like John Adams in America. In contrast you had the more radical liberals like the Jacobins in France and Thomas Pain in America. Edmund Burke who is often credited for being the father of modern conservativism, held such liberal positions like defending the colonist’s in the revolutionary war, ending colonial rule in India. What he wanted to preserve was the British constitution and order of things going back to the glorius revolution.
The actual conservatives in the late 18th century where the ones who wanted to preserve the old order of things, like the tories in the american revolution and the monarchists in the french. They are often called reactionary today. In conclusion Conservative from the 19th century onward really ment classical liberal.

Edited.

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not believe The Republican Party or the Democrat Party can capture so many people’s opinion so perfectly , eye roll . Trump is the only one that got it right , fuck the Republican Party and the democrats too , loyalty should be to America and this whole notion that the Republicans are more conservative than the democrats is ludicrous . Some one has taken the term Theocrat and exchanged that along with war mongering, pro wealth, anti poor to mean “CONSERVATIVE” conserve is the base word

con�??�??�??�??�??�?�·serve
verb
verb: conserve; 3rd person present: conserves; past tense: conserved; past participle: conserved; gerund or present participle: conserving
kənˈsərv/

1.
protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.
"the funds raised will help conserve endangered meadowlands"
    prevent the wasteful or harmful overuse of (a resource).
    "industry should conserve more water"
    synonyms:	preserve, protect, save, safeguard, keep, look after; More
    sustain, prolong, perpetuate;
    store, reserve, husband
    "fossil fuel should be conserved"
    antonyms:	squander
    Physics
    maintain (a quantity such as energy or mass) at a constant overall total.
    Biochemistry
    retain (a particular amino acid, nucleotide, or sequence of these) unchanged in different protein or DNA molecules.
    preserve (food, typically fruit) with sugar.

noun
noun: conserve; plural noun: conserves
ˈkÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¤nˌsərv,kənˈsərv/

1.
a sweet food made by preserving fruit with sugar; jam.
synonyms:	jam, preserve, jelly, marmalade
"cherry conserve"

then you add the suffix ative such as

Acetylative
Adumbrative
Adversative
Affirmative
Affricative
Aggregative
Alternative
Appellative
Applicative
Arbitrative
Associative
Assortative
Carminative
Circulative
Colligative
Combinative
Commutative
Comparative
Confutative
Connotative
Cooperative
Corporative
Correlative
Declarative
Deformative
Degradative
Delineative
Denigrative
Desiccative
Designative
Devastative

It does not change the definition just because the Republicans or the Democrats say it does

Conserve in the political realm is a fiscal term , nothing more , I know:) fuck you anyhow
[/quote]

No, “conservative,” in the political realm(in today’s USA), means something like, “One who wishes to keep things as they are, or perhaps as they were under the last Republican in the position in question.” “Liberal,” politically(in today’s USA), means, “One who wants to ensure that the government continues growing during the next term.” “Third party voter”(in today’s USA) means, “One who does not agree with the direction in which the country is headed but wants to give his stamp of approval to the process that has taken it there anyway.” There is talk of mandating voting. Now that suffrage is so widespread that it has no value, tell me which strategy is most effective.[/quote]

I can buy conserving status quo , but the term came about by conserving money.

The most effective conservative in my opinion would be one that progesses in policy to adapt to changing circumstances . So by definition a progressive conservative
[/quote]

No the political meaning of conservative did not come about with regards to preserving money. The origins of modern conservativism is found in the American and French revolution. What became known as conservatives where the more moderate liberals from that period, like Edmund Burke( Was member of the Whig party and wrote a book about the french revolution ) in England or like John Adams in America. In contrast you had the more radical liberals like the Jacobins in France and Thomas Pain in America. Edmund Burke who is often credited for being the father of modern conservativism, held such liberal positions like defending the colonist’s in the revolutionary war, ending colonial rule in India. What he wanted to preserve was the British constitution and order of things going back to the glorius revolution.
The actual conservatives in the late 18th century where the ones who wanted to preserve the old order of things, like the tories in the american revolution and the monarchists in the french. They are often called reactionary today. In conclusion Conservative from the 19th century onward really ment classical liberal.

Edited.[/quote]

I personally would not debate the length of time the word conservative has been in use in the political realm . My point is that it has been bastardized .
And it is growing more so .

The word Conserve predates any political application . Conservative today is what ever you want to call it. Jesus is a Conservative value even if Jesus costs a lot of money . War is a Conservative value even if it conserves nothing .

Liberals were free men . Period they morphed through out time now they do not even resemble a free man .

Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber â??free (man).â?? The original sense was â??suitable for a free man,â?? hence â??suitable for a gentlemanâ?? (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts . Another early sense, â??generousâ?? (sense 4 of the adjective), gave rise to an obsolete meaning â??free from restraint,â?? leading to sense 1 of the adjective (late 18th century).

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]

I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]

The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]

I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]

Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[/quote]

But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]

Trump is a businessman and he’d have the President of the United States in his pocket. The possibilities are endless really.[/quote]

Precisely what I was thinking.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]

I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]

The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]

I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]

Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[/quote]

But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]

Trump is a businessman and he’d have the President of the United States in his pocket. The possibilities are endless really.[/quote]

Precisely what I was thinking.[/quote]

So he is going to spend 2-3 billion dollars in an attempt to keep the republican out of the White House so that he an ask Hillary for favors?

Not buying it.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I would never throw my vote away on a third party candidate that is simply foolish.
[/quote]

I agree 10,000,000,000%.[/quote]

X infinity. The next president is going to be a democrat or a republican and I definitely do not want another democrat right now. Not after obama.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree Chris Christy is a Fat Fuck:)

I know Zeb will appreciate this :slight_smile:

I know it is not FAUX news [/quote]

If Sanders wins I will seriously consider leaving the country. [/quote]

where have I heard this before , The majority of our problems would have left the country if those damned Republicans would have kept their promise:)

[/quote]

Republicans left my state, and because of it, I now have a governor threatening to come into my shower and fine me $500/day for taking too long a shower.

Urban users use only 10% of the total water, but hey, having a 25% reduction for the 10% of urban users somehow makes “a big difference.”
[/quote]

you are also in the middle of a water crisis , I personally would go after people like Nestle and certain types of Farmers , I doubt it affects your showers too much , I think we are in a tad better shape than Cali , I want to get rid of the pool and go to xeriscape but the wife wins:) I tell her wait till the water bill ditates those circumstances

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I would never throw my vote away on a third party candidate that is simply foolish.
[/quote]

I agree 10,000,000,000%.[/quote]

X infinity. The next president is going to be a democrat or a republican and I definitely do not want another democrat right now. Not after obama. [/quote]

I think many feel that way and that’s why there will be a gigantic turnout for the republican candidate. Also, other than the 23% of females who describe themselves as feminists, Hillary will fail to even motivate her base.

President Rubio will win by large margins–:slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]

I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]

The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]

I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]

Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[/quote]

But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]

Trump is a businessman and he’d have the President of the United States in his pocket. The possibilities are endless really.[/quote]

Precisely what I was thinking.[/quote]

So he is going to spend 2-3 billion dollars in an attempt to keep the republican out of the White House so that he an ask Hillary for favors?

Not buying it.
[/quote]

Where are you getting 2-3 billion from? I imagine presidential favors could be quite lucrative.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]

I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]

The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]

I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]

Carly said something about Trump getting a call from Bill Clinton shortly before he announced his candidacy. If there’s any truth to that, then it’s not out of the question that he is, quite literally, her “trump” card. Trump is a buffoon, yes, but what is he saying? Everything that a vast swath of the right is thinking? Or at least, everything that the left perceives that the right is thinking? His purpose in this campaign, as I see it, is to portray the entire right as the kind of jingoistic, racist boobs that, admittedly, many on the fringe are.
[/quote]

But what does Trump get out of playing the spoiler? Until someone explains that one to me I will continue to think that with Trump’s giant ego he thinks he can win.
[/quote]

Trump is a businessman and he’d have the President of the United States in his pocket. The possibilities are endless really.[/quote]

Precisely what I was thinking.[/quote]

So he is going to spend 2-3 billion dollars in an attempt to keep the republican out of the White House so that he an ask Hillary for favors?

Not buying it.
[/quote]

Where are you getting 2-3 billion from? I imagine presidential favors could be quite lucrative. [/quote]

Ross Perot spent about 1 billion in his effort to become President as a third party candidate back in the 90’s. I would assume that Trump in 2015/2016 would have to spend over double that. I could be off by a bit. But if he is going to tag a serious stab at it he would be in the 2-3 billion dollar range. There are a number of expenses that the party picks up in an election. Trump going it alone would need to get his name on all of the ballots across the country that takes an organization and plenty of money. Then of course there is the much needed advertising which he would also be doing by himself.

I think I’m in the ballpark.

Granted he could run a third party candidacy the down and dirty way. For example, a write in candidacy and spend virtually nothing. In this case it would greatly reduce his impact. He would quickly go from potential spoiler, gaining perhaps 15% of the vote and keeping the republican from winning, to a mere also ran copping less than 3% of the vote and looking like an ineffective idiot. I don’t think Trump wants to look bad. It seems that looking good is more important to Trump than perhaps anyone on the globe.

So, I don’t think Trump is not running a third party candidacy. As I said on a different thread being worth 10 billion (4 billion according to Forbes)does not mean you have a lot of cash on hand as Ross Perot did back in 92’ and 96’. Perot had just sold his company in the mid 80’s to GM for 2.4 billion and yes that was mostly cash and stock which is easily convertible to cash. Trump on the other hand has almost all of his wealth tied up in real estate. I don’t know how much you know about real estate but it takes time to sell a building for its true value. And the larger the property the more time that it takes. If Trump were serious about a third party run you would be reading about how he has placed several buildings up for sale. In addition to that he does not own anything outright to my knowledge. Bank Z may own 80% of any particular real estate holding.

Anyway, Trump likes money far more than he loves Hillary or hates the GOP. So, I am betting that he will be schmoozed by the republican party, get his ego stroked and maybe a few other things, respect is mostly what he wants, and go silently into the night.

We will find out very soon!

One more thing regarding Trump’s great wealth. He claims that each time he places the name “Trump” on a building, Golf course or other investment property that it raises the value of said property by 50-100 million dollars depending on where and what it is.

To this I say bunk. He is deluding himself (and others) into thinking that is the value of his name on any particular property. And he can include that in his net worth, which he has done. But, all it does is artificially inflate his net worth.

I am not claiming that Trump is not a very wealthy man. And if he wants to divest himself of some very major holdings he can run a strong third party candidacy. However, it is much more difficult than most think. In addition to that he would have to start that divesture in the very near future. He simply does not have 2-3 billion dollars in cash on hand. Granted, he could begin slowly as he won’t need the entire amount immediately.

I just don’t see him taking such a risk as his true net worth, taking away all of the tricks he used to inflate it, is no where near the 10 billion reported. As I said in the above post Forbes estimates his wealth to be 4 billion which is far more accurate in my estimation. If true that means that he would have to divest himself of 75% of his net worth.

Will a man who places such a high premium on net worth to the point of inflating it to make himself look even richer than he is sell property for less than it’s worth (needing money in a hurry) simply to throw it away on a third party candidacy that is doomed from the beginning?

I will be bold enough to predict that Trump will not run a third party candidacy. And as I said in my previous post the republicans will stroke his ego and send him on his way feeling more respected than when he began.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
One more thing regarding Trump’s great wealth. He claims that each time he places the name “Trump” on a building, Golf course or other investment property that it raises the value of said property by 50-100 million dollars depending on where and what it is.

To this I say bunk. He is deluding himself (and others) into thinking that is the value of his name on any particular property. And he can include that in his net worth, which he has done. But, all it does is artificially inflate his net worth.

I am not claiming that Trump is not a very wealthy man. And if he wants to divest himself of some very major holdings he can run a strong third party candidacy. However, it is much more difficult than most think. In addition to that he would have to start that divesture in the very near future. He simply does not have 2-3 billion dollars in cash on hand. Granted, he could begin slowly as he won’t need the entire amount immediately.

I just don’t see him taking such a risk as his true net worth, taking away all of the tricks he used to inflate it, is no where near the 10 billion reported. As I said in the above post Forbes estimates his wealth to be 4 billion which is far more accurate in my estimation. If true that means that he would have to divest himself of 75% of his net worth.

Will a man who places such a high premium on net worth to the point of inflating it to make himself look even richer than he is sell property for less than it’s worth (needing money in a hurry) simply to throw it away on a third party candidacy that is doomed from the beginning?

I will be bold enough to predict that Trump will not run a third party candidacy. And as I said in my previous post the republicans will stroke his ego and send him on his way feeling more respected than when he began.[/quote]

Fox tried to KO Trump, and he threw it back in their faces. Republicans better figure out their tired, boring, boiler-plate bullshit because Trump is polling even better now.

If the Business of the United States is BUSINESS,

Then who better to be President of the United States than a Businessman ?

yeah, funky ass question…i know.