Posted on 07/21/2015 1:34:27 PM PDT by Academiadotorg
I hope you’re right about Trump throwing his support to Cruz. I just don’t trust Trump...he’s a champion BSer.
I hope you’re right about that, Din Maker. I don’t trust Trump as far as I could throw him.
Arcane and practically meaningless concept ( unless we're talking about committed electors, but even then ...).
Consider a simple proof - you're a Cruz supporter and he bails and throws his support' to Bush, or ~gasp~ Trump. Would you automatically follow his advice? Talking heads like Rove make their living adding up the percentages that this and that guy 'has' and calculate what-if scenarios and inevitably end up scratching their whiteboards and their heads until they're bald when they are surprised at yet another loss. Rove and his assumptions
Such concepts are truly offensive because these so-called leaders consider us 'followers', possessions they control. I'm no follower and I have no leader. We're not pawns on their whiteboards.
Most importantly, the squishy middle of blue collar taxpayers, retirees, and others that often sit out elections but periodically show up in populist waves are the least predictable. Long story short, don't count on anything this cycle. In fact, if Trump bailed it would quite probably severely depress enthusiasm of those he has excited and hand the election to the bad guys. So truly he is in a d*mned if you do/don't situation and will be blamed for a loss in any possible outcome - except if he won.
Actually it isn't. It's pretty simple, unless you're trying to unnecessarily complicate things.
"Consider a simple proof - you're a Cruz supporter and he bails and throws his support' to Bush, or ~gasp~ Trump. Would you automatically follow his advice?"
I wouldn't do it, period. I think for myself. But for some, endorsement by a favored politician means everything.
" Talking heads like Rove make their living adding up the percentages that this and that guy 'has' and calculate what-if scenarios and inevitably end up scratching their whiteboards and their heads until they're bald when they are surprised at yet another loss. Rove and his assumptions Such concepts are truly offensive because these so-called leaders consider us 'followers', possessions they control. I'm no follower and I have no leader. We're not pawns on their whiteboards."
The sad truth is that some of us are followers. All you have to do is look at the devotion to Trump that's developed, in spite of his liberal history. All that matters is what he says, and you'd better not attack the savior of the country.
"Most importantly, the squishy middle of blue collar taxpayers, retirees, and others that often sit out elections but periodically show up in populist waves are the least predictable. Long story short, don't count on anything this cycle. In fact, if Trump bailed it would quite probably severely depress enthusiasm of those he has excited and hand the election to the bad guys. So truly he is in a d*mned if you do/don't situation and will be blamed for a loss in any possible outcome - except if he won."
He's a liberal Democrat. Depressed enthusiasm is much preferable to having him in the White House---and worse, elected by conservatives.
>>>>"Arcane and practically meaningless concept ( unless we're talking about committed electors, but even then ...)."
>>Actually it isn't. It's pretty simple, unless you're trying to unnecessarily complicate things.
>>>>"Consider a simple proof - you're a Cruz supporter and he bails and throws his support' to Bush, or ~gasp~ Trump. Would you automatically follow his advice?"
>>I wouldn't do it, period. I think for myself. But for some, endorsement by a favored politician means everything.
By saying you wouldn't go along I'm pretty sure you just proved my point ( Q.E.D. ), unless we're talking about different things for example that Trump 'followers' should jump if he bails, but not the other guys? Do as I say but not what I do?
>>The sad truth is that some of us are followers. All you have to do is look at the devotion to Trump that's developed, in spite of his liberal history. All that matters is what he says, and you'd better not attack the savior of the country.
You're definitely not going to have friendly arguments with people that appear to support trump by calling them 'followers' ( c'mon, it's way too early in this cycle for that ). It smacks of the same condescension that churchgoers receive from leftist scumbuckets. Just sayin'. Walker and Cruz and a few others' supporters are good people but have noticeably become apoplectic lately. They are making a huge mistake by believing that the groundswell is made up of folks drawn from their own guys' camps and that if only they would come to their senses and return home all would be as it was meant to be. That's the mistake made by the GOPe in 1992 believing they were *entitled* to all those votes taken by Perot ( which BTW is exactly what the dummycrats think of black voters ).
>>He's a liberal Democrat. Depressed enthusiasm is much preferable to having him in the White House---and worse, elected by conservatives.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think that one is wildly incorrect! Depressed turnout is exactly how (D)ummycrats win. So, that statement is ludicrous in my opinion. As far as Trump's party, look, I'm up here. New York is loaded with leftists. The (R) crowd is more liberal than southern (D) when there actually were southern (D). I would vote for Zell Miller (D) over Pataki (R) in a heartbeat. Even Kemp and Giuliani were/are liberals compared to elsewhere. But Trump is actually kinda agnostic politically which some consider a bad thing, though it might actually be the best thing in this case.
Anyway, I submit that the republic is already lost, and any elected status quo candidate is merely delaying the inevitable. The only real solutions are extremely radical ( see my comment here ).
You have every right to believe that the country just needs a checklist conservative to ride to the rescue, but I don't. The hypothetical perfect President probably wouldn't even un-sign a single executive order ( precedent, tradition, status quo ) let alone ride major bills through Congress and sign them into law to undo the damage. Sorry, but that's my personal cynicism. Ronaldus Maximus or Jesus himself couldn't untangle the 80 years of Communist knots strangling the republic.
I think you assume Trump 'followers' ( like I said, that's condescending ) merely believe the same of him of being a saviour of sorts. Perhaps some do but I get the feeling that most are more logical and feel the only solution is to first destroy the GOPe ( boner! ) that is shackling TEA party and all conservative Congress members from doing their jobs ( 2010 and 2014 landslides bubbling underneath the surface ), and mass firing in the bureaucracy in the District of Criminals. Then we need to take a real whack at the ungodly deficit/debt.
Before you tear down the other guy, honestly answer this question ... Will your guy do *any*, let alone *all* three of these things? Honestly?
With all that said, I am not optimistic. We need to thread a needle to save the republic since we have no Jeffersons or Madisons down there to repeat what they did during Adam's administration. And what they did was drastic! But I respect your opinion as we are definitely on the same side against the Godless NeoMarxists, I just respectfully disagree about the path back to sanity, if there is one at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.