(02-18-2018 10:19 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:00 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Impossible to have a realistic conversation about this at this point in time. Since we don't have an obvious democratic candidate to judge Trump against.
Keep in mind, despite some revisionists on here, Trump lost to the sleaziest democratic opponent imaginable in the popular vote. That can't be ignored. 2 million more people in this country voted for Hillary! Had the dems fielded almost anyone in the country other than Hillary we'd have a dem in the oval office right now.
The dems are the only ones who can beat the dems. If next election plays out as sleazily as the last, even I might vote for the repub.

Don't forget - the presidential election is a series of 50 state elections. The candidates knew that. Trump didn't even bother campaigning in New York or California because he went to places he could win.

Remove Cali and New York and Hillary's popular vote advantage disappears.......and margin of victory in a given state doesn't matter.

Maybe she should have gone to states in the upper mindwest that she lost instead of spending her time in LA hobknobing with her celebrity crowd......

Indeed. She ignored those states thinking she had them in the bag, and even though she had California in the bag, people in Wisconsin aren't nearly as cool as the celebrity crowd. Hillary need only look in the mirror to see who cost her the election. It had nothing to do with Russians.

(02-18-2018 07:31 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 11:09 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 11:05 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I would argue they knew exactly who he is and what he is. They shook hands with the devil because he agreed to promote several of their pet agenda items (anti abortion, conservative Supreme court justice). The supreme court justice in particular was/is important because with one more on board they can control the "political activism" they so despise in liberals and turn it to their favor. It's part of a more long range plan and Trump is only a piece of the puzzle.

Seems to me the larger question still to be answered is what if any price evangelicals will pay for this pragmatic association with a man so obviously morally bankrupt.

Paraphrase: What profitith a man to gain the world if he loses his soul? Religion that becomes to closely involved in politics is ultimately a losing hand.

This is easy.

It's more a matter of people weighing choices with an understanding that no one gets everything they want. Those folks looked at the choices and decided to live with some things they didn't like because they determined that another choice was even less palatable....

They had umpteen choices for a ® nominee and chose the most morally bankrupt one. No way Jesus would cast a vote for the man.

Trump did not get the majority of the GOP vote through the primaries. Now for walk through the the primaries and notice he's a solid "30%" guy until others start dropping out, then he picks most of that up.

The field for the GOP was just too divided and Trump took advantage of two things

1 - That the GOP had more than 10 legit people running
2 - That the GOP base of voters were sick of the GOP being weak

(02-18-2018 10:00 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Impossible to have a realistic conversation about this at this point in time. Since we don't have an obvious democratic candidate to judge Trump against.
Keep in mind, despite some revisionists on here, Trump lost to the sleaziest democratic opponent imaginable in the popular vote. That can't be ignored. 2 million more people in this country voted for Hillary! Had the dems fielded almost anyone in the country other than Hillary we'd have a dem in the oval office right now.
The dems are the only ones who can beat the dems. If next election plays out as sleazily as the last, even I might vote for the repub.

I don’t think so.

She could have won by 10 million votes across California, New York, and Illinois but the truth is that she got crushed in the vote that counted—the electoral college.

It was really an ass whipping and the Dems could be seen as a regional, or urban, only party. No Dem appeals to the wide stretch of Americans.

(02-18-2018 11:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:00 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Impossible to have a realistic conversation about this at this point in time. Since we don't have an obvious democratic candidate to judge Trump against.
Keep in mind, despite some revisionists on here, Trump lost to the sleaziest democratic opponent imaginable in the popular vote. That can't be ignored. 2 million more people in this country voted for Hillary! Had the dems fielded almost anyone in the country other than Hillary we'd have a dem in the oval office right now.
The dems are the only ones who can beat the dems. If next election plays out as sleazily as the last, even I might vote for the repub.

I don’t think so.

She could have won by 10 million votes across California, New York, and Illinois but the truth is that she got crushed in the vote that counted—the electoral college.

It was really an ass whipping and the Dems could be seen as a regional, or urban, only party. No Dem appeals to the wide stretch of Americans.

“Crushed”. “Ass-whipping”. Donald is that you?

Clinton sucked as a candidate, no doubt. Trumps campaign completely outplayed hers, no doubt. Give me a break though with this nonsense trying to portray it as some kind of epic beat down . 80,000 votes out of 12.5 million in 3 states was the difference.

A win is a win, but it wasn’t a beat down by any means. One crap candidate beat another crap candidate because his team was better then hers.

A real beatdown would have happened if someone like Kasich or Rubio ran against Clinton. Or Biden ran against Trump.

(02-18-2018 01:40 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  Clinton sucked as a candidate, no doubt. Trumps campaign completely outplayed hers, no doubt. Give me a break though with this nonsense trying to portray it as some kind of epic beat down . 80,000 votes out of 12.5 million in 3 states was the difference.

A win is a win, but it wasn’t a beat down by any means. One crap candidate beat another crap candidate because his team was better then hers.

A real beatdown would have happened if someone like Kasich or Rubio ran against Clinton. Or Biden ran against Trump.

I think when a AA baseball team beats a major league franchise by *1* run, it's a beat down.

(02-16-2018 11:05 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I would argue they knew exactly who he is and what he is. They shook hands with the devil because he agreed to promote several of their pet agenda items (anti abortion, conservative Supreme court justice). The supreme court justice in particular was/is important because with one more on board they can control the "political activism" they so despise in liberals and turn it to their favor. It's part of a more long range plan and Trump is only a piece of the puzzle.

Seems to me the larger question still to be answered is what if any price evangelicals will pay for this pragmatic association with a man so obviously morally bankrupt.

Paraphrase: What profitith a man to gain the world if he loses his soul? Religion that becomes to closely involved in politics is ultimately a losing hand.

^^^ from above. "Seems to me the larger question still to be answered is what if any price evangelicals will pay for this pragmatic association with a man so obviously morally bankrupt."

For the same reason that Libturds were so enamored with Oblunder, to press for the issues that are important to them. You can talk all you want about Trump being corrupt but you fail to see your own butt in the mirror with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, the Divider in Chief Oblunder who went around the Constitution with his "pen and phone".

In other words snowflake when you see the corruption in your own idols come and talk to me about "MORALS".

(02-18-2018 08:00 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 07:31 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 11:09 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 11:05 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I would argue they knew exactly who he is and what he is. They shook hands with the devil because he agreed to promote several of their pet agenda items (anti abortion, conservative Supreme court justice). The supreme court justice in particular was/is important because with one more on board they can control the "political activism" they so despise in liberals and turn it to their favor. It's part of a more long range plan and Trump is only a piece of the puzzle.

Seems to me the larger question still to be answered is what if any price evangelicals will pay for this pragmatic association with a man so obviously morally bankrupt.

Paraphrase: What profitith a man to gain the world if he loses his soul? Religion that becomes to closely involved in politics is ultimately a losing hand.

This is easy.

It's more a matter of people weighing choices with an understanding that no one gets everything they want. Those folks looked at the choices and decided to live with some things they didn't like because they determined that another choice was even less palatable....

They had umpteen choices for a ® nominee and chose the most morally bankrupt one. No way Jesus would cast a vote for the man.

If you go and look at the Republican primary voting results, you will see that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio had strong results in states considered part of the Bible Belt. That indicates that for evangelicals, Trump likely wasn't their top choice.

It wasn't until he eventually won and the Democrats coronated crooked Hillary that the evangelicals chose Trump.

He wouldn't choose Hillary either.

...AND that's exactly the way it happened with me. I was rooting for Cruz but he lost in the primary and Trump won. I knew then that I would vote for a Republican and didn't care who it was going to be because I sure as heck was not going to vote for Oblunder 2.0. Trump may be a lot of things that upset me but he's given me the things I believe in so far and I'm satisfied with him. He's even cooled down his tweeter (hee, hee, that doesn't ring well) and it seems he's thinking before he tweets.

Killery, not so much. If she had been elected she would have taken the Maduro route and made us more socialist and herself still more corrupt, if that's possible.

(02-18-2018 10:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 01:18 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  obama had his religious leaders. The difference was he had to hide the fact he knew them.

I’ll take the light over the dark. My God has used many ‘bad’ people through history to get good results. You don’t know Gods plan and neither do I.

Cyrus, who didn't believe in God, brought the Jews back to Jerusalem.

Didn't Nebuchanasser (spelling) let the Jewish people build the 2nd Temple? He too wasn't a believer.

(02-18-2018 10:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  It was actually a very strong Republican field. It was just too divided. Trump had a strong core and the rest split up the other voters. If simply had Kasich not run or dropped out after South Carolina as he should have, I don't think Trump would have won the Republican nomination. But he split the vote on Super Tuesday and so Trump won the vast majority of primaries, giving him huge momentum and killing off Rubio. Everybody was working on their own campaign and fighting each other while thinking they were using Trump to stop other candidates.

Cruz, Rubio or Bush would have won without Kasich in the field. If he never ran it would have been Rubio or Bush. If he dropped out after South Carolina, it would probably have been Cruz, but possibly Rubio.

And to show how much good Trump has done these candidates won't even run against him because the odds are stack against them. They'll run in 2024 when his eight year term is up and they'll have to contend with Pence who in my opinion as good a man as he is, he ain't no Trump. Trump knows economics that's why we've done so good. Demons on the other hand only know socialism, race division and identity politics and that won't fly with even some who voted for Killery.

(02-18-2018 10:19 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:00 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Impossible to have a realistic conversation about this at this point in time. Since we don't have an obvious democratic candidate to judge Trump against.
Keep in mind, despite some revisionists on here, Trump lost to the sleaziest democratic opponent imaginable in the popular vote. That can't be ignored. 2 million more people in this country voted for Hillary! Had the dems fielded almost anyone in the country other than Hillary we'd have a dem in the oval office right now.
The dems are the only ones who can beat the dems. If next election plays out as sleazily as the last, even I might vote for the repub.

Don't forget - the presidential election is a series of 50 state elections. The candidates knew that. Trump didn't even bother campaigning in New York or California because he went to places he could win.

Remove Cali and New York and Hillary's popular vote advantage disappears.......and margin of victory in a given state doesn't matter.

Maybe she should have gone to states in the upper mindwest that she lost instead of spending her time in LA hobknobing with her celebrity crowd......

When Killery told the voters in West Virginia that she was going to take away their jobs a lot of other people in other industries were probably afraid that she would come for them too so they said, no thanks and voted for Trump.

(02-18-2018 02:28 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 01:18 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  obama had his religious leaders. The difference was he had to hide the fact he knew them.

I’ll take the light over the dark. My God has used many ‘bad’ people through history to get good results. You don’t know Gods plan and neither do I.

Cyrus, who didn't believe in God, brought the Jews back to Jerusalem.

Didn't Nebuchanasser (spelling) let the Jewish people build the 2nd Temple? He too wasn't a believer.

He was the one who deported them and destroyed the 1st temple. Cyrus let them return.

(02-16-2018 10:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Great read from Erick Erickson.

Quote:As his ambitions grew, Trump cannily cultivated relationships with evangelicals, and they convinced themselves that those relationships must be sincere since they began before he openly started campaigning for the presidency. Once he did start openly campaigning, the outreach only became more intensive. As Brody and Lamb report, Trump would seek out the preachers to sit next to at events. He would bring his mother’s Bible to meetings to show it off. Evangelicals fell for it. So deluded and distracted are they by the trappings of power, they do not even see what Brody and Lamb see. “He’s the P. T. Barnum of the 21st century,” an anonymous banker in the book says of Donald Trump. These evangelical leaders have yet to realize that they are the suckers.

The Apotheosis of Donald J. Trump

Maybe Democrats could learn something from him. Instead, they continue to court the 0.01% of trannies and 3% of LGBTQXYZ.

(02-18-2018 01:57 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 01:40 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  Clinton sucked as a candidate, no doubt. Trumps campaign completely outplayed hers, no doubt. Give me a break though with this nonsense trying to portray it as some kind of epic beat down . 80,000 votes out of 12.5 million in 3 states was the difference.

A win is a win, but it wasn’t a beat down by any means. One crap candidate beat another crap candidate because his team was better then hers.

A real beatdown would have happened if someone like Kasich or Rubio ran against Clinton. Or Biden ran against Trump.

I think when a AA baseball team beats a major league franchise by *1* run, it's a beat down.

Idk I guess that’s just a semantics argument. I’d call it a major upset and an embarrassment for the MLB franchise, but a beat down has always meant a blowout/complete domination to me.

The only real way it was MLB vs AA was in political experience of the candidate. And even then, I’d say it was like a 70 year old former MLB player with bad knees playing against a 20 year old with natural athletic talent who had never played baseball before. They both had big league teams and backers running the campaign.

The Trump campaign vs the Clinton campaign was an all time beat down, no doubt. One gets an A, one gets an F.

I just don’t think anyone can argue Trump the candidate beat Hillary the candidate in a blow out or “ass whipping”. It was a turd sandwich narrowly edging out a giant douche.

(02-18-2018 02:58 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  It was a turd sandwich narrowly edging out a giant douche.

Pretty much. So why did it come down to that?

(02-18-2018 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 02:58 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  It was a turd sandwich narrowly edging out a giant douche.

Pretty much. So why did it come down to that?

Democrats messed up big time by christening Hillary years before the election. That was a self inflicted wound. It was “her turn” so she was coronated, and shame on Democrats for that. I hope for a much larger field of candidates in 2020.

On the Republican side it was just the perfect storm to nominate Trump. The vote was split and fractured so much, and that was the only way he could win. A lot of fellow Democrats will say it was a weak field, but I disagree. There were a lot of average to good (but no great) candidates, and they covered all spectrums of the party. Heck, I would have definitely voted for Kasich or Paul over Hillary, and would have seriously considered Rubio.

(02-18-2018 03:24 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 02:58 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  It was a turd sandwich narrowly edging out a giant douche.

Pretty much. So why did it come down to that?

Democrats messed up big time by christening Hillary years before the election. That was a self inflicted wound. It was “her turn” so she was coronated, and shame on Democrats for that. I hope for a much larger field of candidates in 2020.
On the Republican side it was just the perfect storm to nominate Trump. The vote was split and fractured so much, and that was the only way he could win. A lot of fellow Democrats will say it was a weak field, but I disagree. There were a lot of average to good (but no great) candidates, and they covered all spectrums of the party. Heck, I would have definitely voted for Kasich or Paul over Hillary, and would have seriously considered Rubio.

I still think Priebus screwed the pooch with the way the debates were set up. You had all the candidates before all the liberal newspeople who knew that they wanted Hillary to win, and that the best way to do that was to sew hate and discontent among republicans. So they ran the early debates like reality shows, and Trump thrived in that environment. By the time people realized it was out of control, Trump had too much momentum. The left wing media were happy, because they figured it would be too easy to portray Trump as unhinged and hand the election to Hillary. I must admit, I thought the same myself. But instead of the republican that it would be easiest to beat, Trump turned out to have been maybe the only republican who could beat Hillary, because he could tap into a populist stream that Jeb or Rubio or Cruz or Romney couldn't touch. The efforts to portray Trump as unhinged have continued, but he's still there.

I would hope republicans display far more sense next time they go through primaries.

(02-18-2018 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 07:31 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  They had umpteen choices for a ® nominee and chose the most morally bankrupt one. No way Jesus would cast a vote for the man.

When they had umpteen choices, they voted for one of the others. When it came down to Trump or Hillary, they voted for what they believed to be the lesser evil.

Yup.

which interestingly will be studied for decades as to how a vast and varied field of career or semi-career pols all fell short to an outsider, newcomer.

I've been arguing politics (politely for the most part) since around 3rd grade, 1974, then Ford/Carter, I guess, with my friend Tom. Got a pretty good schooling on the topics and foundations after 7 years of "Higher Ed" as well.

Worked in, on, outside many campaigns since then, including Bubba's, W's and varied others, local and national.

NEVER seen this coming, til I watched a confluence of what took place.

First road sign was the Brexit vote. WHAT?!? They voted for what? Soon as I heard/read that, early Summer '16 I think, I thought damn. This may well be Ross Perot writ large.

This rather crazy, gold leafed, orange-haired orangutan may have a real shot. Ann Coulter called it right out of the box. Bully on her.

I've got no "love" (OP) for the guy, but he's a DAMN choice cut above what we were otherwise offered.

Vote for him over Her> again tomorrow...

I didn't get him either at first. But when he kept getting votes and I saw who was voting for him, then it was obvious what was going on. At least to normal people, not media people in their bubble. It was the Reagan Democrats, the blue collar workers, who were strongly backing him. The other 21 candidates mostly ignored them as had both parties for 30 years.

Yup.

All playing to this “group” or that group, regardless the stupidity of what their “cause” is/was.

Some just weren’t ready for prime time, I’d put Rubio on top of that heap. I took my kids to his rally here, very well attended, all dorned out with flags, the bunting the fake pre-made signs, etc.

His speech was God awful. Tried to out Trump, Trump- that ain hapnin. All the stupid tiny hands comments, appearance jokes etc.,

Came off more HS girls mean club than presidential campaign. People walking to their cars within 5-10 minutes...

Get a bottle of H2O, Marco, seems you need it...

16 others, most not even “contenders”, beat em all like a drum.

A fascinating study for someone.

(02-18-2018 10:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 01:18 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  obama had his religious leaders. The difference was he had to hide the fact he knew them.

I’ll take the light over the dark. My God has used many ‘bad’ people through history to get good results. You don’t know Gods plan and neither do I.

Cyrus, who didn't believe in God, brought the Jews back to Jerusalem.

Trump has a lot of strong biblical parallels with Cyrus and Jehosaphat.

The Cyrus parallels are obvious as he declares Jerusalem the capital of Israel and will likely soon publically push for a new Temple to be built. The Cyrus prophecy is in Isaiah 45, but begins at the end of chapter 44.

Isaiah 44:28
28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.



Jehosaphat was a former idol worshiper and unpredictable wildman who God anointed as King. Jehosaphat immediately aligned himself with the true Holy Men of God (who were probably nervous about him given his history) and then proceeded to drain the swamp (Israel and Judah had become grossly corrupt).

He cleaned house.

(02-18-2018 10:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  It was actually a very strong Republican field. It was just too divided. Trump had a strong core and the rest split up the other voters. If simply had Kasich not run or dropped out after South Carolina as he should have, I don't think Trump would have won the Republican nomination. But he split the vote on Super Tuesday and so Trump won the vast majority of primaries, giving him huge momentum and killing off Rubio. Everybody was working on their own campaign and fighting each other while thinking they were using Trump to stop other candidates.

Cruz, Rubio or Bush would have won without Kasich in the field. If he never ran it would have been Rubio or Bush. If he dropped out after South Carolina, it would probably have been Cruz, but possibly Rubio.

And I’d suggest we’d be saying “President Clinton”, yet again.

Only person that could have lost to Trump was Clinton. Only person Clinton could lose to was Trump.

Perfect storm.

(02-18-2018 10:19 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:00 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Impossible to have a realistic conversation about this at this point in time. Since we don't have an obvious democratic candidate to judge Trump against.
Keep in mind, despite some revisionists on here, Trump lost to the sleaziest democratic opponent imaginable in the popular vote. That can't be ignored. 2 million more people in this country voted for Hillary! Had the dems fielded almost anyone in the country other than Hillary we'd have a dem in the oval office right now.
The dems are the only ones who can beat the dems. If next election plays out as sleazily as the last, even I might vote for the repub.

Don't forget - the presidential election is a series of 50 state elections. The candidates knew that. Trump didn't even bother campaigning in New York or California because he went to places he could win.

Remove Cali and New York and Hillary's popular vote advantage disappears.......and margin of victory in a given state doesn't matter.

Maybe she should have gone to states in the upper mindwest that she lost instead of spending her time in LA hobknobing with her celebrity crowd......

Dumber than that, actually.

Remove a relative handful of Counties, jurisdictions, neighborhoods even in those two states and she loses the PV as well.

She spends 2 weekends, without collapsing from “pneumonia” in certain parts of Pa., we’re saying Chief of Staff Podesta.

Think of THAT!!!