Trump a disaster for the Nation and Republicans

And my point is you have no point. No basis for your analysis. Unless you count those facebook stories you've been "studying." Still waiting on your sources.



Trump, while far less than ideal, is far better than Hillary for both America and the world.



This is the woman who supported coups and regime change in Honduras (now the most dangerous country in the world), Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, and backed the inclusion in NATO of countries right on the border of Russia. You want a nuclear bomb waiting to go off - well there you have it and Clinton is ready to set it off if it will help her win a second election.



What has Donald Trump said that will injure the world? Said that GWBush was a moron for going to Iraq? That he'll treat Palestinians like they are human beings? That he won't blanketly support the apartheid Likud government of Israel with billions of dollars of subsidies? Build a wall on the Mexican border? That he'll scrap wasteful military spending in Korea, Japan, Europe, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?



Trump is the only candidate left in the race with any sense at all when it comes to foreign policy. It isn't a lot of sense but it's a lot more than anyone else has.

You can't believe a single word Trump has said about ANY of his positions. He, like Hillary, is simply telling people what he thinks they want to hear. He is unserious about the current issues facing the nation.



His recent answers on abortion are perfect example of this. He simply hasn't thought about it. He isn't pro-life. He probably doesn't have a real position on it, because he doesn't care about it and has never thought about it. So when asked, he was trying to THINK of what someone who was actually pro-life would say, and then said that. Then when his handlers tell him how bad he messed up, he changed. Then when he was still wrong, he changed again.



Trump would be a disaster because of how unpredictable he would be in any situation. I could never support him.

Ddawg wrote:

Hillary would be bad for America.

Trump would be bad for the entire world.

Hillary is disastrous internationally. And you want to make her president?

I do not. But neither do I want America to become the next 'Trump University'. Two evil people, two horrible choices.

Mars wrote:

Mars wrote:
Hillary would be bad for America.

Trump would be bad for the entire world.

Hillary is disastrous internationally. And you want to make her president?

I do not. But neither do I want America to become the next 'Trump University'. Two evil people, two horrible choices.

I agree. Trump is way down my list too.



But, IMHO, Trump would not compromise national security secrets as Hillary has (her home brew server). Trump would never abandon and leave our people to die at the hands of terrorists as Hillary has. And, Trump will not allow the southern border to remain an open sieve - as Hillary and Obama have. Hillary will continue the open border, Sanctuary city policy. Disastrous and lawless.

Trump can't even properly raise money for groups he raises money for.

More than two months after Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump claimed to have raised $6 million for veterans' charities at a fundraiser held on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, most of the organizations targeted to receive the money have gotten less than half of that amount.



The Wall Street Journal, citing a survey of the 22 groups listed by Trump's campaign as prospective recipients for the money, reported that 19 organizations had obtained a total of $2.4 million from Trump's foundation or associates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/08/veterans-charities-reportedly-receive-fraction-money-raised-by-trump-event.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl17%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D1116903343_htmlws-main-bb

If it comes down to Trump or Hillary, I vote third-party or write-in. It's that simple. I'm done being told I only have two options.

snoscythe wrote:
If it comes down to Trump or Hillary, I vote third-party or write-in. It's that simple. I'm done being told I only have two options.

All of us have more than 2 options when voting. The problem id, we really only have 2 viable options of someone who could actually be elected. That's why Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012. Republicans that were either evangelical and religiously opposed to Romney, or registered GOP folks that were just plain old apathetic and stayed home.



As painful as it can be, I will always vote to deny those Socialist Democrats the White House. I despise the lying, mean spirited, lawless Socialist Democrats. Until a party comes along that can beat those scoundrels. I am compelled to vote GOP - whoever it is - to deny the Socialist Democrats the most powerful seat in the world.



I am more than willing to vote 3rd party - or any Constitutionally strong, fiscally Conservative candidate that can actually win. Until then - we must defeat and keep the unethical, lying Hillary out of office.



Have a great day to all. I'm going to go hang myself with fishnet stockings. It's a "Mad - Mad World." 8)

If enough voters reject false premise that we are wasting our vote if we vote for anyone other than the two major party candidates, it will force the two parties to pay more attention to their party members and view them as someone to be courted rather than someone to be held hostage. I'm done voting for candidates I despise just because I want to deny someone else a win. I'd rather use it to send my own small little message that just because I identify as GOP doesn't mean I'm going to drink any swill they send my way.

snoscythe wrote:
If enough voters reject false premise that we are wasting our vote if we vote for anyone other than the two major party candidates, it will force the two parties to pay more attention to their party members and view them as someone to be courted rather than someone to be held hostage. I'm done voting for candidates I despise just because I want to deny someone else a win. I'd rather use it to send my own small little message that just because I identify as GOP doesn't mean I'm going to drink any swill they send my way.

I agree with everything you are saying. That said, in 2012, the Libertarians, Evangelicals, and apathetic GOP folks all felt, sincerely, they were tired of "politics as usual." Yep - they sent a message, and we got 4 more years of Socialist Oblunder Executive Ordering this country into oblivion.



I am absolutely on-board with supporting a new political party based on Constitutional principles and sound conservative Fiscal principles. We need it. The GOP party is ineffective, spineless, and corrupt - to a degree. (Not as corrupt as the socialist democrats.) But, the GOP has lost their way and needs an overhaul.



Still, I will hold my nose in Nov. and vote for whoever the GOP nominates because Hillary or Sanders are such a threat to the Constitution. I sincerely fear for the survival of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the very existence of the USA as we know it. Obama and the Socialist democrats are doing their damndest to permanently alter our Constitutional rights. They despise free speech (unless it is to their benefit), the 2nd Amendment, and the rule of law (unless they can use rule, regulations and laws to pummel political opponents).



All in all, it's all going to come crashing down sometime - and the end of times will be ushered in. I guess now is as good as any to bring the Constitution down. Stock up on food, ammunition, and keep your powder dry.



Remember - "Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes!"

Col. William Prescott, Battle of Bunker Hill, June 1775

Hillary will do to our country what Angela Merkel has done to Germany: Invasion by "refugees," constant threat of terrorism, communities destroyed, sexual violence at an all time high, and ignoring the citizenry. Trump is a blowhard who may get us into another overseas war, but I'll take that every day of the week over becoming the next Sweden or Germany. REALLY still holding out hope for Cruz, though.

Schmoe wrote:
Hillary will do to our country what Angela Merkel has done to Germany: Invasion by "refugees," constant threat of terrorism, communities destroyed, sexual violence at an all time high, and ignoring the citizenry. Trump is a blowhard who may get us into another overseas war, but I'll take that every day of the week over becoming the next Sweden or Germany. REALLY still holding out hope for Cruz, though.

You assessment I concur with. My #1 choice is Ted Cruz. In the event that Trump is the nominee, I am hoping Trump would pick Cruz or Fiorina as his VP running mate.



Here's another important point about Trump - he likes to succeed - and he is driven by a huge ego. That ego and his drive to succeed will require he surround himself with capable advisors: foreign policy, military, and legal.



I really think Trump would listen and do what is best for America and the law abiding American citizen. I believe he will follow the Constitution, the rule of law, work with Congress (3 branches of govt), economically create a positive environment where jobs can grow and business thrive, hammer the lawless sanctuary cities, and establish trust with our allies, and secure our horrific southern border.



Hillary will do none of those things listed. She has stated she will continue Obama's policies. Time for a change.

Ddawg wrote:
Here's another important point about Trump - he likes to succeed - and he is driven by a huge ego. That ego and his drive to succeed will require he surround himself with capable advisors: foreign policy, military, and legal.

And it is that huge ego that will prevent him from surrounding himself with capable advisers. His huge ego won't allow him to be around those who can help him make smart policy decisions.



http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-advice-wisconsin-college-students-221383

“And you’ll find that when you become very successful, the people that you will like best are the people that are less successful than you, because when you go to a table you can tell them all of these wonderful stories, and they’ll sit back and listen,” he said. “Does that make sense to you? OK? Always be around unsuccessful people because everybody will respect you. Do you understand that?”

SpiffCoug wrote:

Here's another important point about Trump - he likes to succeed - and he is driven by a huge ego. That ego and his drive to succeed will require he surround himself with capable advisors: foreign policy, military, and legal.

And it is that huge ego that will prevent him from surrounding himself with capable advisers. His huge ego won't allow him to be around those who can help him make smart policy decisions.



http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-advice-wisconsin-college-students-221383

“And you’ll find that when you become very successful, the people that you will like best are the people that are less successful than you, because when you go to a table you can tell them all of these wonderful stories, and they’ll sit back and listen,” he said. “Does that make sense to you? OK? Always be around unsuccessful people because everybody will respect you. Do you understand that?”

That's a funny quote. Taking it in context, Trump was saying, when you go to dinner parties - sitting at the table and surrounding yourself with unsuccessful people - so you can pontificate, bloviate, tell big stories and have the losers fawn and hang on every word. LOL! That's pretty good tongue in cheek.



Note - he did not say - "surround yourself with unsuccessful people and take their advice ..."



Being a sitting president is a whole different program than sitting at a dinner table. I think Trump would take that office serious and surround himself with the best military, political, and military advisors in the country. And unlike Obama, would listen to them. IMHO.

Ddawg wrote:
Being a sitting president is a whole different program than sitting at a dinner table. I think Trump would take that office serious and surround himself with the best military, political, and military advisors in the country. And unlike Obama, would listen to them. IMHO.

And yet, look at whom is currently surrounding Trump. He's hired people to run his campaign who don't understand how the process works. Who don't understand how delegates are actually awarded and won. And given how many corrections his staff is having to make on his constant and contradictory comments show that he's not listening to them. Given how unprepared he is beyond his "make America great" slogan during debates show how unserious he is.



Choosing between Trump and Hillary would be a disastrous choice with no good option for the American people.

A question to those vehemently opposed to trump. (and I don't like him)



do you agree with the gop's tactics in colorado?

Yes. Trump must be stopped. He has no chance of uniting the party and no chance of beating Hillary. But what has happened in CO is no different than what has happened in MI.



Cruz got shut out of delegates in MI. His ground game wasn't good enough there to secure delegates. Trump has no ground game in basically any state and that is why he lost delegates in Colorado. Trump's campaign is so disjointed that they are misspelling the names of delegates their supports should support. They are getting many small details just wrong.



He can't be bothered to learn the ins and outs of how this primary is being conducted.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Yes. Trump must be stopped. He has no chance of uniting the party and no chance of beating Hillary. But what has happened in CO is no different than what has happened in MI.



Cruz got shut out of delegates in MI. His ground game wasn't good enough there to secure delegates. Trump has no ground game in basically any state and that is why he lost delegates in Colorado. Trump's campaign is so disjointed that they are misspelling the names of delegates their supports should support. They are getting many small details just wrong.



He can't be bothered to learn the ins and outs of how this primary is being conducted.

That's fine. But just remember what comes around goes around. If they do it now, they'll do the same thing at some point in the future when they don't like "your guy". Why go through the whole dog and pony primaries if delegates are all that really matter? the GOP leadership is what must be stopped. The biggest group of incompetent nitwits out there. It's flat out embarrassing that obama is still in office.



GOP, start listening to folks instead of telling everyone who they should vote for and you may actually win an election here or there.

BroncoBot wrote:
A question to those vehemently opposed to trump. (and I don't like him)



do you agree with the gop's tactics in colorado?

I totally disagree with what happened in CO. It has nothing to do with who I am supporting. (I am a Cruz supporter).



But, either we are a democracy where people get to vote and have it counted - or we are not a democracy and the party bosses scheme, manipulate, and select who they want. I may not agree with the candidate that is selected thru the democratic process. But, the integrity go the primary and general election is paramount - critical.

To jack with democracy is "Bad Mojo."

Ddawg wrote:

A question to those vehemently opposed to trump. (and I don't like him)



do you agree with the gop's tactics in colorado?

I totally disagree with what happened in CO. It has nothing to do with who I am supporting. (I am a Cruz supporter).



But, either we are a democracy where people get to vote and have it counted - or we are not a democracy and the party bosses scheme, manipulate, and select who they want. I may not agree with the candidate that is selected thru the democratic process. But, the integrity go the primary and general election is paramount - critical.

To jack with democracy is "Bad Mojo."

We aren't a democracy.

Everyone was okay with pretty much the same thing in Colorado 4 years ago.



That time around Santorum won 40.3% of the vote on the caucus night poll with Romney collecting 35% and Ron Paul taking 12%. However, by the time the process completed, Romney took home 13 delegates, and Santorum only got 6---one more than Ron Paul's 5. In my caucus, Santorum took more than 50% in the preference poll, but not a single Santorum supporter wanted to be a delegate, so we sent 4 Romney supporters and 1 Paul supporter to the state convention. The process was explained ad nauseum, but none of the Santorum folks wanted to spend a Saturday in Denver.



http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/colorado



What's truly ironic is that in 2012 Trump mocked Santorum for not understanding the Delegate selection process.