The GOP will change its tune on Donald Trump. Just wait.

[Origanalist]

You are such a party pooper. Everybody is having fun on the Trump train. He will do the right thing, he is Trump!

 

[openfire]

The fact that he and the establishment that you want to pit him against are bosom buddies?

Ahhh. The "theater" thesis - They really do want him, but are just pretending to hate him and are doing everything they can to stop him just to make it convincing.

I suppose that's a possibility. But I'm not convinced that's the case.

 

[AuH20]

Ahhh. The "theater" thesis - They really do want him, but are just pretending to hate him and are doing everything they can to stop him just to make it convincing.

I suppose that's a possibility. But I'm not convinced that's the case.

The donors control the DNC and RNC. Now you throw in a wildcard like Trump that's completely detached from the donor base. You could comprehend the anger when you're a donor and have spent years assembling politicians that will steal for your industry.

 

[jonhowe]

I know a lot of you Trump haters like to claim that he can't win because so many Republicans say they won't support him, and you like to talk about meaningless early polls. I've refuted those arguments, but apparently I'm not "intellectual" enough since I'm voting for Trump. So, here are the same arguments I've presented, only this time they are brought to you buy one of your respectable, liberal intellectuals:

http://theweek.com/articles/608188/gop-change-tune-donald-trump-just-wait

Did you not realize this article is sarcasm?

 

[kahless]

Protectionism is economic illiteracy; his plan for a massive tariff is a reason to not vote for him.

In my lifetime I was watched the destruction of communities throughout my state due to the mass exodus of manufacturing plants leaving the country. These communities now look like Dresden after WWII, so don't give me this bullshit protectionism is economic illiteracy since I have witnessed the effects of the trade imbalance first hand throughout my life time. It continues today as two of the largest employers in my county that employed thousands are in the process of closing up shop and moving to India.

We cannot possibly compete with countries that use child labor, have slave hours and wages, provide no benefits and have no regard for the environment. What does logic dictate when you are dealing with countries that do this. You raise tariffs on imports.

His plan is to deport all illegals, and then let all those without criminal records (i.e. virtually all of them) back in through a special expedited process.

This plan is called touchback. It's a form of legalization designed to appeal to the stupidest of the immigration hawks (who won't read past the deportation part).

Evidently, it works as intended.

Just as you believe people that want to see the law enforced are stupid the other side feels the same about candidates that do not want to uphold the law. By not enforcing the laws we already have it provides an open invitation for people to come here and break the law. The stupidity of fighting against upholding immigration law is another reason that Rand's candidacy failed.

It's obvious that he has no clear understanding of foreign policy, and no principled opposition to intervention.

He does throw out the occasional non-interventionist soundbite.

You clearly have not been listening to Trump's repeated comments against foreign intervention and 9/11. He is going further than any other candidate in the race. The rest are far more hawkish and Rubio wants war on multiple fronts. Is he Ron or Rand Paul on these issues "no" yet he is closer to them than any other candidate running in both parties. It is all we have right now to stop far worse death and destruction.

The remaining candidates are going as far as to promote a war with Russia. You do not hear Trump doing so and in fact is saying he would work with Putin.

Translation: give a minority of the GOP a boner for a few months with juicy rhetoric, to result in absolutely nothing of any consequence.

Ron and Rand were beaten down for most of their positions by the media wielding the political correctness axe. Trump took away the media's power and has gone further in exposing the establishment including on topics such as 9/11 more than Ron and Rand ever had.

So, your list of pros is mostly cons.

And here are some more:

• no plan to cut spending (when pressed he says "waste, fraud, and abuse") Has been promoting exactly that at his campaign events including in last nights debate)
• actively opposes entitlement reform Plans to cut waste and fraud, but will not raise the age.
• favors single-payer socialized medicine. This has been debunked repeatedly in this forum and by Trump.
• favored bank bailouts and corporate bailouts generally (what if there's another recession in the next 4-8 years?) This is con I agree but he at least wanted the loans paid back
• wants to not only maintain the existing police state, but expand it (Muslim database, more torture, closing internet, etc) Closing the internet in a war zone is appropriate action in a time of war, the rest I agree is problematic.

Every single Republican candidate favors this. The Democratic candidates do not favor it and will not change a thing about Obamacare

Take your list and weigh the alternatives against Clinton, Rubio, Sanders and Cruz. What do you come up with? No one said Trump is a perfect candidate or is Ron or Rand. I have pointed out similarities and improvements that would be made under Trump which are far better than any alternative right now. The best you can do however is insult Trump voters rather than provide an alternative for the next 4 years that what will somewhat hold off far worse policy or at least dial a few things back a bit.

 

[erowe1]

Ahhh. The "theater" thesis - They really do want him, but are just pretending to hate him and are doing everything they can to stop him just to make it convincing.

I suppose that's a possibility. But I'm not convinced that's the case.

I don't think he was their first choice. I just think they'll warm right up to him when and if he's an inevitability. At bottom they want the same things. I agree with the OP on that.

 

[openfire]

Did you not realize this article is sarcasm?

LOL

I hadn't read it until I saw your post. Nice catch.

 

[erowe1]

Now you throw in a wildcard like Trump that's completely detached from the donor base.

Is he? I don't believe he is.

 

[CaptUSA]

Now you throw in a wildcard like Trump that's completely detached from the donor base. You could comprehend the anger when you're a donor and have spent years assembling politicians that will steal for your industry.

What the hell?! He is PART of that donor base! Geez.

Now, imagine George Soros decided to run himself instead of buying politicians to do his bidding. Do you think the politicians would like it?! Would you then call him anti-establishment?!

 

[AuH20]

Is he? I don't believe he is.

He has no cozy associations with Wall St. He's been out of New York City scene for decades.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/15/news/economy/donald-trump-wall-street/

Trump's unpredictability introduces a new level of uncertainty. It's a huge negative for investors, who want to map out likely outcomes before committing money on the future.

"Wall Street likes knowns, not variables. And Donald Trump is a variable. I would dare to say he is a wildcard," said Peter Kenny, a 30-year veteran of Wall Street who is chief market strategist at The Clear Pool Group, a financial technology company.

A Trump White House "would be more of a shoot-from-the-hip kind of administration," said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P Capital IQ. "If you're concerned about uncertainty, I would be very concerned about a Trump presidency."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-2016-wall-street-reaction-213614

“I held four lunches for investors in August and at the first one everyone assumed Trump would implode,” said Byron Wien, vice chairman of Blackstone Advisory Partners and a senior figure on Wall Street. “By the fourth one everyone was taking him very seriously. He taps into frustrations that are very real and he is a master manipulator of the media.”

The CEO of one large Wall Street firm, who declined to be identified by name criticizing the GOP front-runner, said the assumption in the financial industry remains that something will eventually knock Trump off and send voters toward a more establishment candidate. But that assumption is no longer held with strong conviction. And a dozen Wall Street executives interviewed for this article could not say what might dent Trump's appeal or when it might happen.

"I don't know anyone who is a Donald Trump supporter. I don’t know anyone who knows anyone who is a Donald Trump supporter. They are like this huge mystery group,” the CEO said. "So it's a combination of shock and bewilderment. No one really knows why this is happening. But my own belief is that the laws of gravity will apply and those who are prepared to run the marathon will benefit when Trump drops out at mile 22. Right now people think Trump is pretty hilarious but the longer it goes on the more frightening it gets."

The only industry that you really say Trump has a relationship with are the Casino guys (Phil Ruffin, etc.)

 

[openfire]

I don't think he was their first choice. I just think they'll warm right up to him when and if he's an inevitability. At bottom they want the same things. I agree with the OP on that.

I don't think the establishment wants to eliminate their source of cheap labor by building a wall between the US and Mexico and deporting 10 million Mexicans. I'm also pretty sure they don't want trade wars/tariffs, and I'm positive they don't want to audit the Fed.

 

[timosman]

 

[erowe1]

I don't think the establishment wants to eliminate their source of cheap labor by building a wall between the US and Mexico and deporting 10 million Mexicans. I'm also pretty sure they don't want trade wars/tariffs, and I'm positive they don't want to audit the Fed.

Trump doesn't want to decrease the number of Mexicans here either. He just wants a symbolic touchback gesture. He's for amnesty. A wall is irrelevant.

Trump doesn't want to audit the Fed either. If he did, why has he never said so until last week? Where was he on that when the Senate actually had a vote on it in the midst of this campaign? It's not like he didn't have ample opportunity to say he was for it.

The establishment doesn't want trade wars and tariffs, except when they can be used to incite real wars. And they're right not to. I guess it remains to be seen if Trump will follow through on that. If he does, then it's hardly a selling point.

 

[kahless]

Is he? I don't believe he is.

Here is an interesting chart you can sort by clicking on the headings. Scroll down to "Campaign Finance" and click on "money spent" from outside groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Out of 16 candidates Trump ranks 14 in money spent from outside groups this race. He ranks 10th on total money spent. Even Rand/Fiorina spent far more Trump themselves and outside groups. Bush spent a staggering amount of course, Carson surprisingly 2nd and no surprise with Rubio 3rd and Cruz a close 4th.

 

[CaptUSA]

I don't think the establishment wants to eliminate their source of cheap labor by building a wall between the US and Mexico and deporting 10 million Mexicans. I'm also pretty sure they don't want trade wars/tariffs, and I'm positive they don't want to audit the Fed.

And yet somehow you believe Trump does want those things? Because of his rhetoric, right?

Evidence tells me that he would support trade wars and tariffs (using government to benefit himself has been a long standing tradition with Trump), but the rest of that is just bluster. But it allows people to believe what they want to believe about him.

 

[timosman]

And yet somehow you believe Trump does want those things? Because of his rhetoric, right?

Evidence tells me that he would support trade wars and tariffs (using government to benefit himself has been a long standing tradition with Trump), but the rest of that is just bluster. But it allows people to believe what they want to believe about him.

And this is how you do it. Rand was too specific and left no room for people to imagine all the great things he would do once elected. He was no alpha male either. Do not hate the player, hate the game.

 

[AuH20]

If you want a laugh, go over to Redstate. Please do.

 

[CaptUSA]

And this is how you do it. Rand was too specific and left no room for people to imagine all the great things he would do once elected. He was no alpha male either. Do not hate the player, hate the game.

Oh, how I hate the game. I just wish people (especially in this forum) were aware enough to see how they're being played.

 

[AuH20]

Oh, how I hate the game. I just wish people (especially in this forum) were aware enough to see how they're being played.

You do realize that we are not picking the ideal candidate and essentially the best of the rest? Rand is out. Rubio and Cruz can't be trusted due to their donor and campaign staff ties. That leaves only Trump.

 

[The Gold Standard]

In my lifetime I was watched the destruction of communities throughout my state due to the mass exodus of manufacturing plants leaving the country. These communities now look like Dresden after WWII, so don't give me this bullshit protectionism is economic illiteracy since I have witnessed the effects of the trade imbalance first hand throughout my life time. It continues today as two of the largest employers in my county that employed thousands are in the process of closing up shop and moving to India.

What you said does nothing to refute what he said, in fact you simply confirmed it. Your lack of economic understanding leads you to believe that low tariffs are the reason those manufacturing jobs are gone. Like if the government takes a bigger cut those jobs will come back. Instead of moving to India those employers would be closing up shop for good.