Romney on Trump

jvquarterback wrote:

I do not agree with your assessment, but let's hope neither one of us has to find out if our fears are realized or not.

What assessment do you disagree with: that Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio have lost all reason when it comes to foreign policy or that Trump is the most sane on foreign policy.



Now I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump's foreign policy is sane, he endorses torture and murdering the children of criminals (though that has been the official US policy for many years) and his economic foreign policy hasn't been outlined in depth, but I'll take what he's saying over the insanity of the past 25 years Hillary and Marco keep pushing.

I said that I am less certain that the Republic will survive a Trump presidency than HRC, and you discarded that concern as nothing more serious than a mere meme. I don't agree. What economic foreign policy Trump has talked about are actions that would essentially begin a number of trade wars. I think that would be bad too.

BoiseBYU wrote:
I said that I am less certain that the Republic will survive a Trump presidency than HRC, and you discarded that concern as nothing more serious than a mere meme. I don't agree. What economic foreign policy Trump has talked about are actions that would essentially begin a number of trade wars. I think that would be bad too.

What is Trump proposing that is any different than the other candidates and why would the country be any less likely to survive his presidency than anyone else? In particular I think the continued foreign policy endorsed by Clinton and Rubio is far more damaging to the country than anything Trump has proposed.



Other than his trade war talk, which I don't really believe, and even taken to the extreme isn't much different than the protectionist garbage the US has used to help special interests for the past 150 years, Trump hasn't said anything that would put the country at risk.



The garbage about Trump being a huge risk to the country is a meme with no backing in reality and you haven't made any argument in favor of you conclusion so how can anyone do anything except reject it as such?

snoscythe wrote:
I'm not concerned about Trump becoming the next Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini. I think it's fear-mongering to make those comparisons. Trump is so disliked by both the Dems and the establishment GOP that he would be impeached before it got to that point.

I think you've nailed it. Fears about Trump being a military dictator is unfounded.



Here's how Mussolini came to power



"Benito Mussolini’s self-confessed “thirst for military glory” battled his acute intelligence, psychological acumen, and political shrewdness for control over his military policies. Originally a revolutionary Socialist, he abandoned his party to advocate Italian intervention in World War I. Following the war, in which he served as a rifleman, Mussolini decided his destiny was to rule Italy as a modern Caesar and re-create the Roman Empire. He forged the paramilitary Fascist movement in 1919-1921, using it to march on Rome, become prime minister, and then to seize dictatorial power (1925-1926)."



Here's how Stalin came to power... (which sounds like Obama to me)



Born into poverty, Stalin became involved in revolutionary politics, as well as criminal activities, as a young man. After Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) died, Stalin outmaneuvered his rivals for control of the party. Once in power, he collectivized farming and had potential enemies executed or sent to forced labor camps. Stalin aligned with the United States and Britain in World War II (1939-1945) but afterward engaged in an increasingly tense relationship with the West known as the Cold War (1946-1991). After his death, the Soviets initiated a de-Stalinization process.



The US system will have chosen him just like they chose Obama. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. But I doubt it will change much. Until the American moral system improves, I believe God will continue to let us struggle.

jvquarterback wrote:

I said that I am less certain that the Republic will survive a Trump presidency than HRC, and you discarded that concern as nothing more serious than a mere meme. I don't agree. What economic foreign policy Trump has talked about are actions that would essentially begin a number of trade wars. I think that would be bad too.

What is Trump proposing that is any different than the other candidates and why would the country be any less likely to survive his presidency than anyone else? In particular I think the continued foreign policy endorsed by Clinton and Rubio is far more damaging to the country than anything Trump has proposed.



Other than his trade war talk, which I don't really believe, and even taken to the extreme isn't much different than the protectionist garbage the US has used to help special interests for the past 150 years, Trump hasn't said anything that would put the country at risk.



The garbage about Trump being a huge risk to the country is a meme with no backing in reality and you haven't made any argument in favor of you conclusion so how can anyone do anything except reject it as such?

I think Trump is different from the other candidates in a variety of ways. To quote Jacob Weisberg "Trump represents what autocratic attitudes look like in a modern American context. He is unfriendly toward the free market, the free press, and the free exercise of religion while paying lip service to these values. He is xenophobic, conspiratorial in his worldview, admiring of violence and torture, contemptuous of the weak, and unwilling to tolerate criticism or peaceful dissent—but all in the name of correcting excesses of tolerance. Various global and historical comparisons shed light on his style and thinking: Perón, de Gaulle, Silvio Berlusconi, Vladimir Putin, and others. But Trump isn’t importing Latin caudillismo or Russian despotism. He bullies those who resist him in the contemporary vernacular of American celebrity culture.



This is why those arguing that Trump’s policies are more moderate than those of his rivals Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio miss the point. Trump’s authoritarianism is an amalgam not of left and right but of wacko left and wacko right: He thinks that George Bush was to blame for 9/11 and that Muslims should be barred from the U.S. Believing both of those things does not make Mr. Trump a centrist—it makes him an eclectic extremist. When it comes to policies, he actually has none in the conventional sense."



My goal is not to try persuade you in any way. It was to respond to how you and I disagree about Trump and why I think he is more dangerous than the other candidates.

WTF?


708498759534059520



Trump is :utard: :utard: :utard: :utard: :utard: :utard:

I'm not a fan of Trump, but we're better than to stoop to using some cleverly-timed photo to try and misrepresent a candidate and their supporters.

Conservatives used to believe that ideas matter in politics. They used to believe that personal character matters in politics.



Trump has a complete dearth of moral character. He is not a good person. He is a liar. He is an unapologetic adulterer. He is a bully.



Trump is braggadocios about his utter lack of understanding of conservative ideas. He does not espouse conservative ideas that forward a limited government. He is a closet, big government liberal.



There isn't a problem out there that he isn't willing to "solve" by utilizing the government to crush any who oppose him.



He is an indecent individual whom I don't want speaking on behalf of conservatives. He lacks the personal integrity that I don't want him negotiating on behalf of Americans.



I will never vote for him.

Schmoe wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, but we're better than to stoop to using some cleverly-timed photo to try and misrepresent a candidate and their supporters.

Unfortunately these pictures are cropping up from Trump rally after Trump rally. It doesn't appear to be just a cleverly timed photo, but rather a consistent action. Not sure what Trump is hoping to accomplish with this, trolling the media or the non-Trump supporters or what, but it's happening a lot.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Conservatives used to believe that ideas matter in politics. They used to believe that personal character matters in politics.



Trump has a complete dearth of moral character. He is not a good person. He is a liar. He is an unapologetic adulterer. He is a bully.



Trump is braggadocios about his utter lack of understanding of conservative ideas. He does not espouse conservative ideas that forward a limited government. He is a closet, big government liberal.



There isn't a problem out there that he isn't willing to "solve" by utilizing the government to crush any who oppose him.



He is an indecent individual whom I don't want speaking on behalf of conservatives. He lacks the personal integrity that I don't want him negotiating on behalf of Americans.



I will never vote for him.

I respect your opinion. But, what would you do if Trump becomes the GOP nominee? I plan to vote for Cruz in the CA primary. But if Trump wins the nomination - I will vote for Trump to stop Hillary. As bad as Trump is - Hillary is pure deceitful evil.



My personal feeling is (and I could be wrong - but I don't think I am) - as evil as Hillary is. I think Trump is full of hot air. I really think Trump's biggest downfall is his ego. He is so full of "braggadocio" crap. Self serving and pompous. But, I do feel he loves the Constitution and the country as it is - based on the principles of our founding fathers.



Whereas Hillary is a gangster - a huge liar that cares nothing for the Constitution or the Founding Fathers. She lies when her lips move. She embraces and wants to continue everything Obama had begun. We cannot endure 4-8 more years of Obama rule. It's got to stop.



My .02

8)

hawkwing wrote:

I'm not a fan of Trump, but we're better than to stoop to using some cleverly-timed photo to try and misrepresent a candidate and their supporters.

Unfortunately these pictures are cropping up from Trump rally after Trump rally. It doesn't appear to be just a cleverly timed photo, but rather a consistent action. Not sure what Trump is hoping to accomplish with this, trolling the media or the non-Trump supporters or what, but it's happening a lot.

Yes, just like those KKK members in full dress... :roll: I think you're falling for something, being duped.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, but we're better than to stoop to using some cleverly-timed photo to try and misrepresent a candidate and their supporters.

Unfortunately these pictures are cropping up from Trump rally after Trump rally. It doesn't appear to be just a cleverly timed photo, but rather a consistent action. Not sure what Trump is hoping to accomplish with this, trolling the media or the non-Trump supporters or what, but it's happening a lot.

Yes, just like those KKK members in full dress... :roll: I think you're falling for something, being duped.

Nope.

Ddawg wrote:

Conservatives used to believe that ideas matter in politics. They used to believe that personal character matters in politics.



Trump has a complete dearth of moral character. He is not a good person. He is a liar. He is an unapologetic adulterer. He is a bully.



Trump is braggadocios about his utter lack of understanding of conservative ideas. He does not espouse conservative ideas that forward a limited government. He is a closet, big government liberal.



There isn't a problem out there that he isn't willing to "solve" by utilizing the government to crush any who oppose him.



He is an indecent individual whom I don't want speaking on behalf of conservatives. He lacks the personal integrity that I don't want him negotiating on behalf of Americans.



I will never vote for him.

I respect your opinion. But, what would you do if Trump becomes the GOP nominee? I plan to vote for Cruz in the CA primary. But if Trump wins the nomination - I will vote for Trump to stop Hillary. As bad as Trump is - Hillary is pure deceitful evil.



My personal feeling is (and I could be wrong - but I don't think I am) - as evil as Hillary is. I think Trump is full of hot air. I really think Trump's biggest downfall is his ego. He is so full of "braggadocio" crap. Self serving and pompous. But, I do feel he loves the Constitution and the country as it is - based on the principles of our founding fathers.



Whereas Hillary is a gangster - a huge liar that cares nothing for the Constitution or the Founding Fathers. She lies when her lips move. She embraces and wants to continue everything Obama had begun. We cannot endure 4-8 more years of Obama rule. It's got to stop.



My .02

8)

I'll do what I did in 2004 - vote 3rd party. I voted for Nader in 2004. I thought Bush revealed himself as a non-conservative and I wouldn't vote for him.



I also live in Utah, so I have the benefit of not needing to worry about my vote affecting where my state's electoral votes go. I'm pretty sure that Utah's 5 electoral votes will not be going to Hillary.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

I'm not a fan of Trump, but we're better than to stoop to using some cleverly-timed photo to try and misrepresent a candidate and their supporters.

Unfortunately these pictures are cropping up from Trump rally after Trump rally. It doesn't appear to be just a cleverly timed photo, but rather a consistent action. Not sure what Trump is hoping to accomplish with this, trolling the media or the non-Trump supporters or what, but it's happening a lot.

Yes, just like those KKK members in full dress... :roll: I think you're falling for something, being duped.

Nope.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/12/trump-supporter-who-made-nazi-salute-explains-why-she-made-the-gesture/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Ms. Peterson, who was born in West Berlin in 1946 and became an American citizen in 1982, said she took offense to the comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler.



“They said Trump is a second Hitler,” Ms. Peterson said. “I said do you know what that sign stands for? Do you know who Hitler really was?”

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, but we're better than to stoop to using some cleverly-timed photo to try and misrepresent a candidate and their supporters.

Unfortunately these pictures are cropping up from Trump rally after Trump rally. It doesn't appear to be just a cleverly timed photo, but rather a consistent action. Not sure what Trump is hoping to accomplish with this, trolling the media or the non-Trump supporters or what, but it's happening a lot.

Yes, just like those KKK members in full dress... :roll: I think you're falling for something, being duped.

Nope.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/12/trump-supporter-who-made-nazi-salute-explains-why-she-made-the-gesture/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Ms. Peterson, who was born in West Berlin in 1946 and became an American citizen in 1982, said she took offense to the comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler.



“They said Trump is a second Hitler,” Ms. Peterson said. “I said do you know what that sign stands for? Do you know who Hitler really was?”

Kind of strange he'd have his followers do it.

BoiseBYU wrote:
I think Trump is different from the other candidates in a variety of ways. To quote Jacob Weisberg "Trump represents what autocratic attitudes look like in a modern American context. He is unfriendly toward the free market, the free press, and the free exercise of religion while paying lip service to these values. He is xenophobic, conspiratorial in his worldview, admiring of violence and torture, contemptuous of the weak, and unwilling to tolerate criticism or peaceful dissent—but all in the name of correcting excesses of tolerance. Various global and historical comparisons shed light on his style and thinking: Perón, de Gaulle, Silvio Berlusconi, Vladimir Putin, and others. But Trump isn’t importing Latin caudillismo or Russian despotism. He bullies those who resist him in the contemporary vernacular of American celebrity culture.



This is why those arguing that Trump’s policies are more moderate than those of his rivals Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio miss the point. Trump’s authoritarianism is an amalgam not of left and right but of wacko left and wacko right: He thinks that George Bush was to blame for 9/11 and that Muslims should be barred from the U.S. Believing both of those things does not make Mr. Trump a centrist—it makes him an eclectic extremist. When it comes to policies, he actually has none in the conventional sense."



My goal is not to try persuade you in any way. It was to respond to how you and I disagree about Trump and why I think he is more dangerous than the other candidates.

So you're going with the quote (that doesn't say anything at all) of another editor who is simply upset Trump doesn't treat Israel as the 51st state and doesn't want to subsidize Korea, Japan, and Europe or start a war with Russia.



Who cares that US policy already endorses all of the xenophobic comments Trump uses or that the president of the United States is already a monarch with essentially no checks? The past two presidents have and continue to arrange targeted murders of unknown Muslims whose only crime is being a certain age. Trump no more endorses torture than the past two presidents. Have you not read what Clinton has said about Muslims as she ran for senator of New York or what Clinton, Rubio and Cruz have said they want to do in countries where Muslims actually live? If I were Muslim I'd much rather have Trump prevent all Muslims from entering the US than have Clinton, Rubio, or Cruz continue the destruction of my homeland.



Also, Trump blames the Saudi's for 9/11 or at least says they are more likely than Iraq to have been involved. George Bush was president for 9/11 and continued his father's and Clinton's policy of appeasement toward the house of Saud. Do you deny that US foreign policy has had anything to do with the blowback in the middle east?



So let's forget reason, and forget the facts because Trump is going to destroy America more than the past 4 presidents. Hogwash.



Vote for whoever you want, but stop pretending like Trump is any different than the rest of the garbage running for president. I don't believe Trump will make one bit of difference, but if he draws down the US military and more importantly shuts down the industry that leeches off the military (and he's the only candidate even suggesting those things are possible), he is a far, far better candidate than any of the rest of them.

snoscythe wrote:

What exactly happens in a brokered convention? I really have no idea.

If no candidate has enough delegates, the delegates become "unbound" by the results of their primaries/caucuses and they re-vote however they want to....over and over... and over until someone crosses 50%, and they aren't limited to candidates who were on the ballots. It could be Joe The Plumber.

Actually, I think in a brokered convention, the delegates choose between the remaining candidates, however, tradition is that if one has an overwhelming majority, then he should be the one to get the nomination.



As for Trump, I think there is a lot of misinformation about him. His history is different from the others. He didn't stand around saying he would do this or that and then go along with the establishment and the DC insiders. Everything he did was as a New York businessman. So with that in mind, what do you think you would do or say or donate to if you were in NY and wanted to succeed? I am nervous about his background but I also do not want Kasich (all in today on amnesty) or Rubio (Gang of 8 was great-but still much better than Kasich) to win. I wanted Cruz due to the fact that he is truly anti-DC but lately he has sunk to the level of a DC politician. With Trump who knows what we will get but I can guarantee that he would not be as bad as Hilary or Bernie. And leaving either of them (Billary) to appoint what may turn out to be up to four Sup Court justices, you can kiss the US Constitution goodbye. Imagine four more Ginsburgs or Sotamayors.

Here is one of the things that I have wondered and have been looking for. Trump has had thousands of employees, where are the disgruntled ones? I have seen nothing and I am sure that if one were found, the mainstream media would be holding parades for the person and they would be the most famous person in the US. But nothing but crickets. I know a few people who have either dealt or are friends of the Don, and everyone of them say he is one of the most kind and generous people they know.

I personally am not happy with Romney. And if he had succeeded in destroying Trump he would have turned his sights on Cruz. They did everything to force Trump to say he would back whoever won the nomination but then they do things like this. They won't do it to the dems but they will attack their own. And make no mistake, Cruz is much more despised by the establishment than Trump is. But they believe that if they can get rid of Trump than they can destroy Cruz in time to get Rubio or Kasich (the one they want the most). Rubio would most likely be good and I still like him, but Kasich is constantly doing things that you would expect of a Liberal and not a conservative (but that should be obvious because he is not conservative).

As for the convention, if they do a contested convention (not brokered) and do get Romney to become the nomination, the party will split into a republican and a conservative party. And you can say goodbye to this country as you know it. The Dems will win everything for another 30-50 years and turn this country into the socialist dream they envision (and still blame repubs and conservatives for standing in the way and that is why none of their policies work). Some people use the two Brokered and Contested interchangeably but they are different. The brokered is with just the current candidates and the contested happens when the party brings in a new candidate (hence why candidates don't drop out but just suspend their campaign).

jvquarterback wrote:

I think Trump is different from the other candidates in a variety of ways. To quote Jacob Weisberg "Trump represents what autocratic attitudes look like in a modern American context. He is unfriendly toward the free market, the free press, and the free exercise of religion while paying lip service to these values. He is xenophobic, conspiratorial in his worldview, admiring of violence and torture, contemptuous of the weak, and unwilling to tolerate criticism or peaceful dissent—but all in the name of correcting excesses of tolerance. Various global and historical comparisons shed light on his style and thinking: Perón, de Gaulle, Silvio Berlusconi, Vladimir Putin, and others. But Trump isn’t importing Latin caudillismo or Russian despotism. He bullies those who resist him in the contemporary vernacular of American celebrity culture.



This is why those arguing that Trump’s policies are more moderate than those of his rivals Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio miss the point. Trump’s authoritarianism is an amalgam not of left and right but of wacko left and wacko right: He thinks that George Bush was to blame for 9/11 and that Muslims should be barred from the U.S. Believing both of those things does not make Mr. Trump a centrist—it makes him an eclectic extremist. When it comes to policies, he actually has none in the conventional sense."



My goal is not to try persuade you in any way. It was to respond to how you and I disagree about Trump and why I think he is more dangerous than the other candidates.

So you're going with the quote (that doesn't say anything at all) of another editor who is simply upset Trump doesn't treat Israel as the 51st state and doesn't want to subsidize Korea, Japan, and Europe or start a war with Russia.



Who cares that US policy already endorses all of the xenophobic comments Trump uses or that the president of the United States is already a monarch with essentially no checks? The past two presidents have and continue to arrange targeted murders of unknown Muslims whose only crime is being a certain age. Trump no more endorses torture than the past two presidents. Have you not read what Clinton has said about Muslims as she ran for senator of New York or what Clinton, Rubio and Cruz have said they want to do in countries where Muslims actually live? If I were Muslim I'd much rather have Trump prevent all Muslims from entering the US than have Clinton, Rubio, or Cruz continue the destruction of my homeland.



Also, Trump blames the Saudi's for 9/11 or at least says they are more likely than Iraq to have been involved. George Bush was president for 9/11 and continued his father's and Clinton's policy of appeasement toward the house of Saud. Do you deny that US foreign policy has had anything to do with the blowback in the middle east?



So let's forget reason, and forget the facts because Trump is going to destroy America more than the past 4 presidents. Hogwash.



Vote for whoever you want, but stop pretending like Trump is any different than the rest of the garbage running for president. I don't believe Trump will make one bit of difference, but if he draws down the US military and more importantly shuts down the industry that leeches off the military (and he's the only candidate even suggesting those things are possible), he is a far, far better candidate than any of the rest of them.

The bottom line is I view Trump and his candidacy in a far more dangerous light for our country than you do. I have read your views above and elsewhere and disagree. I think you are wrong. Fortunately, in this country that is still allowed.

BoiseBYU wrote:
The bottom line is I view Trump and his candidacy in a far more dangerous light for our country than you do. I have read your views above and elsewhere and disagree. I think you are wrong. Fortunately, in this country that is still allowed.

And you're going to say so without a single quote from Trump or a single reference to his proposed policies. So much for a well-informed electorate.

jvquarterback wrote:

The bottom line is I view Trump and his candidacy in a far more dangerous light for our country than you do. I have read your views above and elsewhere and disagree. I think you are wrong. Fortunately, in this country that is still allowed.

And you're going to say so without a single quote from Trump or a single reference to his proposed policies. So much for a well-informed electorate.

Please don't be rude. It is unbecoming. If you want to have a discussion, I'm willing to engage. If you just want to belittle, I see little advantage. For the record, Trump's statements regarding Muslims, to announcing actions with Mexico or China that would amount to the start of trade wars, to indicating he'd be willing to order US soldiers to torture and commit war crimes, to admiring Putin and Hussein, to supporting violence at his assemblies, to belittling disabled citizens, to denigrating women, to charging George Bush as complicit in 9/11, to misrepresenting his business acumen, to boasting of his adulteries, to discussing dating his daughter (When asked how he'd feel if his daughter posed for Playboy: "I don’t think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”) are what cause me to think he is different than the rest and would be far worse than the rest. I understand you disagree. So be it. I will not lose sleep over it. I likewise understand that some on this site, maybe even a majority, think voting for Trump is preferable to voting for HRC or Sanders. Fine. There is a basis to conclude that, although as I have stated previously I think it is more likely that the Republic can withstand a Sanders or a Clinton than a Trump. I'm sure it is in your bones to have last word, so have at it. I'm done on this topic. I think I've laid out where I am. Peace to all and God Bless the United States of America.

imuakahuku wrote:
tradition is that if one has an overwhelming majority, then he should be the one to get the nomination.

I think you meant to say "plurality", but I agree that someone with an overwhelming majority *usually* gets the nomination. ;)