Other Resources The Political Joe » Trump Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 40
 
 
2015-09-03 2:25 PM

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: Trump

OK, I think he has earned his own thread buy now.

First off, I saw this on twitter and it was hillarious how the Obama logo can easily be tweaked for Trump by rotating and a slight color change:



2015-09-03 2:27 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

The other thing in the news was Trump signing the loyalty pledge.  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/trump-will-sign-gop-loyalty-pledge-213302

I had to chuckle because the eGOP was using this as a tool to keep Trump from getting the nomination.  He had previously said he wouldn't sign one so they started changing the rules in order to cut him out.  So, in typical Trump style he just made that strategy blow up in their faces.  oops

2015-09-03 2:43 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: Trump

Wait a minute........I don't think you can use the words Trump and Loyalty in the same post.  I'm pretty sure that makes the Earth spin backwards.



Edited by Left Brain 2015-09-03 2:44 PM
2015-09-03 4:09 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
6837
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

The other thing in the news was Trump signing the loyalty pledge.  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/trump-will-sign-gop-loyalty-pledge-213302

I had to chuckle because the eGOP was using this as a tool to keep Trump from getting the nomination.  He had previously said he wouldn't sign one so they started changing the rules in order to cut him out.  So, in typical Trump style he just made that strategy blow up in their faces.  oops




Seems that is about all the GOP can do is get strategies stuffed up their azzes. Time for a new playbook.


Trump signing a pledge means nothing. What is to stop him from saying "chuck it, I'm going indie?" If he did, would that mean he would be forever shunned by the republicans? Like he isn't being shunned now? Another money shot right in face of the republican establishment...
2015-09-04 8:55 PM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

I know this can't be possible, but thought I'd share anyways.

Poll: Trump beats Hillary head-to-head

2015-09-05 2:15 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: Trump

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.



2015-09-05 9:01 AM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Well, he has serious hair....so there's that.

2015-09-05 1:38 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton? <snickers>

2015-09-05 2:49 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?




A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.
2015-09-05 2:57 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

I've become pretty liberal on personal liberty issues, and happy to be there......still very hardline right when it comes to National policies......but it's really hard to argue with that.  Trump and Palin at the forefront of the GOP??  That's a non-starter.....and completely ridiculous.



Edited by Left Brain 2015-09-05 2:58 PM
2015-09-05 4:35 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

lol, had to play the Palin card.  I'm just glad that you don't disagree about Obama.  ;-)



2015-09-05 6:28 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

lol, had to play the Palin card.  I'm just glad that you don't disagree about Obama.  ;-)




I know you're not a fan of higher education, and you're never too specific about what your standards are, exactly, when it comes to what "smart" is, but its tough for anyone who isn't completely biased to the point of being unreasonable to argue with either Obama's or Clinton's academic qualifications.
2015-09-05 8:35 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

lol, had to play the Palin card.  I'm just glad that you don't disagree about Obama.  ;-)

I know you're not a fan of higher education, and you're never too specific about what your standards are, exactly, when it comes to what "smart" is, but its tough for anyone who isn't completely biased to the point of being unreasonable to argue with either Obama's or Clinton's academic qualifications.

I'm a huge fan of higher education, so I'm not sure where you got that from (two kids in college right now).  I'm not a huge fan of "academics" who have no real world experience that try to create policy/laws that are not based in reality.  Obama's academically very smart, but real world experience he's an absolute idiot.  Hillary falls into the same camp.

As for whom I feel is best qualified to run for public office is anyone who has real world experience managing a business and making a payroll.  The less "academic experience" the better and the less political experience the better.  In the beginning I was a Palin fan because of her complete lack of political experience.  She was an outsider and seemed to have the moxy to stand up to the system.  It didn't take long for her to get sucked into the Tea Party machine, so my affection waned as she became more and more a part of the "political system". 

Obviously being "intelligent" is important to be President, but I want people that are intelligent in the right areas.  Hope that makes sense.

2015-09-05 8:53 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
6837
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?




A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.


And she made McCain look good... *sigh*
2015-09-05 9:10 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

lol, had to play the Palin card.  I'm just glad that you don't disagree about Obama.  ;-)

I know you're not a fan of higher education, and you're never too specific about what your standards are, exactly, when it comes to what "smart" is, but its tough for anyone who isn't completely biased to the point of being unreasonable to argue with either Obama's or Clinton's academic qualifications.

I'm a huge fan of higher education, so I'm not sure where you got that from (two kids in college right now).  I'm not a huge fan of "academics" who have no real world experience that try to create policy/laws that are not based in reality.  Obama's academically very smart, but real world experience he's an absolute idiot.  Hillary falls into the same camp.

As for whom I feel is best qualified to run for public office is anyone who has real world experience managing a business and making a payroll.  The less "academic experience" the better and the less political experience the better.  In the beginning I was a Palin fan because of her complete lack of political experience.  She was an outsider and seemed to have the moxy to stand up to the system.  It didn't take long for her to get sucked into the Tea Party machine, so my affection waned as she became more and more a part of the "political system". 

Obviously being "intelligent" is important to be President, but I want people that are intelligent in the right areas.  Hope that makes sense.



Then how do you explain your affinity for Ted Cruz, whom you've been a staunch supporter of for the last couple of years and who you've said was one of your preferred GOP candidates for president? He's the absolute antithesis of what you're describing--a guy who set out to be a politician from the beginning, got degrees from both Princeton and Harvard and who has no "real world experience managing a business and making a payroll". If I didn't know better, I'd say maybe there was a teeny tiny bit of a double standard at work here....
2015-09-05 9:21 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: Trump

I think we should all leave BT in a huff!!!



2015-09-05 9:50 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

lol, had to play the Palin card.  I'm just glad that you don't disagree about Obama.  ;-)

I know you're not a fan of higher education, and you're never too specific about what your standards are, exactly, when it comes to what "smart" is, but its tough for anyone who isn't completely biased to the point of being unreasonable to argue with either Obama's or Clinton's academic qualifications.

I'm a huge fan of higher education, so I'm not sure where you got that from (two kids in college right now).  I'm not a huge fan of "academics" who have no real world experience that try to create policy/laws that are not based in reality.  Obama's academically very smart, but real world experience he's an absolute idiot.  Hillary falls into the same camp.

As for whom I feel is best qualified to run for public office is anyone who has real world experience managing a business and making a payroll.  The less "academic experience" the better and the less political experience the better.  In the beginning I was a Palin fan because of her complete lack of political experience.  She was an outsider and seemed to have the moxy to stand up to the system.  It didn't take long for her to get sucked into the Tea Party machine, so my affection waned as she became more and more a part of the "political system". 

Obviously being "intelligent" is important to be President, but I want people that are intelligent in the right areas.  Hope that makes sense.

So, growing up poor, with a broken family, struggling to put yourself through college and then EXCELLING while you're there.  CHOOSING to forgo private sector work for the Public sector.  Spending almost your entire adult life under the magnifying glass of public scrutiny.  Raising a family and seeing to their needs as a parent and a spouse.  Running for public office at local, state, and national levels.  Sitting US Senator, two term President of the United States (Obama).  FLOTUS, US Senator, Secretary of State (Clinton).  Yeah, your right.  No REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE at all.    

I hated baby Bush.  Worse president ever.  EVER!!  But I never questioned his 'experience'.  Very few people had more experience at being a Governor or a President.  But being an oil man (with the family's money) didn't give him much insight into the Global economy, did it?

America is NOT a business.  And the drumbeat insistence that it be run like one is the major reason why you are so disappointed when we elect a president.  Romney's "47%" comment resonated so well because the vast majority of voters really don't want to live in the Incorporated States of America.  

If you feel you're so imminently qualified to run a country because you run a small business-then put your name on a ballot.   Republican or Democrat or Independent-Those you choose to run for PUBLIC office; To represent their constituency as a noble statesman, and not a TV Freak show, then I tip my hat to them all. 

And, BTW, the Affordable Care Act is working!

 

2015-09-05 9:54 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

lol, had to play the Palin card.  I'm just glad that you don't disagree about Obama.  ;-)

I know you're not a fan of higher education, and you're never too specific about what your standards are, exactly, when it comes to what "smart" is, but its tough for anyone who isn't completely biased to the point of being unreasonable to argue with either Obama's or Clinton's academic qualifications.

I'm a huge fan of higher education, so I'm not sure where you got that from (two kids in college right now).  I'm not a huge fan of "academics" who have no real world experience that try to create policy/laws that are not based in reality.  Obama's academically very smart, but real world experience he's an absolute idiot.  Hillary falls into the same camp.

As for whom I feel is best qualified to run for public office is anyone who has real world experience managing a business and making a payroll.  The less "academic experience" the better and the less political experience the better.  In the beginning I was a Palin fan because of her complete lack of political experience.  She was an outsider and seemed to have the moxy to stand up to the system.  It didn't take long for her to get sucked into the Tea Party machine, so my affection waned as she became more and more a part of the "political system". 

Obviously being "intelligent" is important to be President, but I want people that are intelligent in the right areas.  Hope that makes sense.

So, growing up poor, with a broken family, struggling to put yourself through college and then EXCELLING while you're there.  CHOOSING to forgo private sector work for the Public sector.  Spending almost your entire adult life under the magnifying glass of public scrutiny.  Raising a family and seeing to their needs as a parent and a spouse.  Running for public office at local, state, and national levels.  Sitting US Senator, two term President of the United States (Obama).  FLOTUS, US Senator, Secretary of State (Clinton).  Yeah, your right.  No REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE at all.    

I hated baby Bush.  Worse president ever.  EVER!!  But I never questioned his 'experience'.  Very few people had more experience at being a Governor or a President.  But being an oil man (with the family's money) didn't give him much insight into the Global economy, did it?

America is NOT a business.  And the drumbeat insistence that it be run like one is the major reason why you are so disappointed when we elect a president.  Romney's "47%" comment resonated so well because the vast majority of voters really don't want to live in the Incorporated States of America.  

If you feel you're so imminently qualified to run a country because you run a small business-then put your name on a ballot.   Republican or Democrat or Independent-Those you choose to run for PUBLIC office; To represent their constituency as a noble statesman, and not a TV Freak show, then I tip my hat to them all. 

And, BTW, the Affordable Care Act is working!

 

Bro - relax.....Obama was a politician in Chicago.....that's NOT public service.   LMAO

2015-09-06 12:40 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: Trump

I got my knickers in a wad. 

Thanks for the 'shade'. 

2015-09-08 8:30 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

lol, had to play the Palin card.  I'm just glad that you don't disagree about Obama.  ;-)

I know you're not a fan of higher education, and you're never too specific about what your standards are, exactly, when it comes to what "smart" is, but its tough for anyone who isn't completely biased to the point of being unreasonable to argue with either Obama's or Clinton's academic qualifications.

I'm a huge fan of higher education, so I'm not sure where you got that from (two kids in college right now).  I'm not a huge fan of "academics" who have no real world experience that try to create policy/laws that are not based in reality.  Obama's academically very smart, but real world experience he's an absolute idiot.  Hillary falls into the same camp.

As for whom I feel is best qualified to run for public office is anyone who has real world experience managing a business and making a payroll.  The less "academic experience" the better and the less political experience the better.  In the beginning I was a Palin fan because of her complete lack of political experience.  She was an outsider and seemed to have the moxy to stand up to the system.  It didn't take long for her to get sucked into the Tea Party machine, so my affection waned as she became more and more a part of the "political system". 

Obviously being "intelligent" is important to be President, but I want people that are intelligent in the right areas.  Hope that makes sense.

Then how do you explain your affinity for Ted Cruz, whom you've been a staunch supporter of for the last couple of years and who you've said was one of your preferred GOP candidates for president? He's the absolute antithesis of what you're describing--a guy who set out to be a politician from the beginning, got degrees from both Princeton and Harvard and who has no "real world experience managing a business and making a payroll". If I didn't know better, I'd say maybe there was a teeny tiny bit of a double standard at work here....

I wouldn't say I'm a "staunch supporter" of Cruz.  What I've said is that I hope and pray that a viable third party candidate who was fiscally conservative would rise up and shake up the machine.  Unfortunately that's never been a viable path, so I looked for the most "outsider" I could find in the GOP and the DNC and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were the closest I could find.  So, I supported them both for the simple fact that they were the best the GOP had to offer from a standing up to the system standpoint.
The DNC unfortunately has absolutely nobody that's come to the forefront that's even slightly moderate on anything.

You asked the question about my candidate qualifications and I answered.  Cruz certainly has risks of being an insider in sheep's clothing, but up to this point his actions have shown otherwise.

2015-09-08 8:39 AM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

lol, had to play the Palin card.  I'm just glad that you don't disagree about Obama.  ;-)

I know you're not a fan of higher education, and you're never too specific about what your standards are, exactly, when it comes to what "smart" is, but its tough for anyone who isn't completely biased to the point of being unreasonable to argue with either Obama's or Clinton's academic qualifications.

I'm a huge fan of higher education, so I'm not sure where you got that from (two kids in college right now).  I'm not a huge fan of "academics" who have no real world experience that try to create policy/laws that are not based in reality.  Obama's academically very smart, but real world experience he's an absolute idiot.  Hillary falls into the same camp.

As for whom I feel is best qualified to run for public office is anyone who has real world experience managing a business and making a payroll.  The less "academic experience" the better and the less political experience the better.  In the beginning I was a Palin fan because of her complete lack of political experience.  She was an outsider and seemed to have the moxy to stand up to the system.  It didn't take long for her to get sucked into the Tea Party machine, so my affection waned as she became more and more a part of the "political system". 

Obviously being "intelligent" is important to be President, but I want people that are intelligent in the right areas.  Hope that makes sense.

So, growing up poor, with a broken family, struggling to put yourself through college and then EXCELLING while you're there.  CHOOSING to forgo private sector work for the Public sector.  Spending almost your entire adult life under the magnifying glass of public scrutiny.  Raising a family and seeing to their needs as a parent and a spouse.  Running for public office at local, state, and national levels.  Sitting US Senator, two term President of the United States (Obama).  FLOTUS, US Senator, Secretary of State (Clinton).  Yeah, your right.  No REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE at all.    

I hated baby Bush.  Worse president ever.  EVER!!  But I never questioned his 'experience'.  Very few people had more experience at being a Governor or a President.  But being an oil man (with the family's money) didn't give him much insight into the Global economy, did it?

America is NOT a business.  And the drumbeat insistence that it be run like one is the major reason why you are so disappointed when we elect a president.  Romney's "47%" comment resonated so well because the vast majority of voters really don't want to live in the Incorporated States of America.  

If you feel you're so imminently qualified to run a country because you run a small business-then put your name on a ballot.   Republican or Democrat or Independent-Those you choose to run for PUBLIC office; To represent their constituency as a noble statesman, and not a TV Freak show, then I tip my hat to them all. 

And, BTW, the Affordable Care Act is working!

 

Why are you so angry?  

I think the bolded above is the single biggest flaw in your argument.  You are correct that America isn't a business, but the fact that every politician (from both sides) doesn't run it like one is the single biggest problem we face in America.  It's like you running your household by spending $500k per year when you only make $100k per year.  Your household isn't a business either, but you dam sure better run it like one or you're going to be in a world of financial hurt one day.

America is in a world of hurt financially and the longer we pretend that it's not and continue to run it "like it's not a business" the worse the crash is going to be.  If we as a nation were debt free you and I would have no problems with social programs like the ACA, but my biggest gripe is that we simply can't afford it because we spent all our money on other stupid stuff that doesn't matter.

As for Obama's qualifications I don't think you get to count his Senate or two terms as President as qualifications to become president because he started his campaign as soon as he went to the senate and him being President was after he was elected.
He has a great story, but as we've all seen in the real world his story hasn't translated into him being a great President.  Quinnipiac did a poll last year and from a public opinion standpoint Obama is the worst president in History.  Obviously that's a subjective poll, but the public as a whole does not approve of his leadership or what he's done in office.  You may not agree with that or like that, but it's true.



2015-09-08 8:47 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

This is a serious world and it requires serious thinkers. 

I can't believe people are even talking about Trump.

Serious thinkers like Obama and Clinton?

A person supporting the party that once ran Sarah Palin out as a VP candidate should be prohibited from questioning the intelligence of any other parties' candidate for any other political office for 100 years, at least.

lol, had to play the Palin card.  I'm just glad that you don't disagree about Obama.  ;-)

I know you're not a fan of higher education, and you're never too specific about what your standards are, exactly, when it comes to what "smart" is, but its tough for anyone who isn't completely biased to the point of being unreasonable to argue with either Obama's or Clinton's academic qualifications.

I'm a huge fan of higher education, so I'm not sure where you got that from (two kids in college right now).  I'm not a huge fan of "academics" who have no real world experience that try to create policy/laws that are not based in reality.  Obama's academically very smart, but real world experience he's an absolute idiot.  Hillary falls into the same camp.

As for whom I feel is best qualified to run for public office is anyone who has real world experience managing a business and making a payroll.  The less "academic experience" the better and the less political experience the better.  In the beginning I was a Palin fan because of her complete lack of political experience.  She was an outsider and seemed to have the moxy to stand up to the system.  It didn't take long for her to get sucked into the Tea Party machine, so my affection waned as she became more and more a part of the "political system". 

Obviously being "intelligent" is important to be President, but I want people that are intelligent in the right areas.  Hope that makes sense.

Then how do you explain your affinity for Ted Cruz, whom you've been a staunch supporter of for the last couple of years and who you've said was one of your preferred GOP candidates for president? He's the absolute antithesis of what you're describing--a guy who set out to be a politician from the beginning, got degrees from both Princeton and Harvard and who has no "real world experience managing a business and making a payroll". If I didn't know better, I'd say maybe there was a teeny tiny bit of a double standard at work here....

I wouldn't say I'm a "staunch supporter" of Cruz.  What I've said is that I hope and pray that a viable third party candidate who was fiscally conservative would rise up and shake up the machine.  Unfortunately that's never been a viable path, so I looked for the most "outsider" I could find in the GOP and the DNC and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were the closest I could find.  So, I supported them both for the simple fact that they were the best the GOP had to offer from a standing up to the system standpoint.
The DNC unfortunately has absolutely nobody that's come to the forefront that's even slightly moderate on anything.

You asked the question about my candidate qualifications and I answered.  Cruz certainly has risks of being an insider in sheep's clothing, but up to this point his actions have shown otherwise.

I also forgot to add that my appeal towards Trump is that he more closely fits my ideal of a candidate qualification wise and there's no question that he is sticking it to the system which I love more than anything.  He wasn't in the picture back when Rand and Ted were making waves.

I know everyone keeps bashing on him for being direct, crazy, un-presidential, or whatever but that's what appeals to me and I think that's what's appealing to the rest of the country.  I Just saw a poll over the weekend that he had over 25% support from the Democrat African American community which is absolutely unheard of.  Sure, there are things I don't like about him, but if there's ever been a candidate who had the moxie to fix the fiscal mess in Washington it's Trump and that's my number one issue by a mile.

2015-09-08 9:36 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
6837
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Trump
Trump / Cruz 2016?
2015-09-08 9:46 AM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by mdg2003 Trump / Cruz 2016?

I like Carson more than I like Trump, but he'd never be a #2, so I have to go for Trump/Carson.

2015-09-08 12:42 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
6837
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by mdg2003 Trump / Cruz 2016?

I like Carson more than I like Trump, but he'd never be a #2, so I have to go for Trump/Carson.




Haven't heard a lot about Carson. What I have heard, I like. I'd have to research him a bit further before saying I would would or wouldn't vote for him. I want to keep Cruz in the Senate for a little more "seasoning." Trump still scares me. I like a lot of what he is saying, but there is still a lot of unknown quantity concerning his fiscal policy. The media has tried to destroy him, but he keeps gaining ground and support. I'm in the wait and see camp. Sadly, the decision will probably be made for me before the primaries reach Texas, again...
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Trump Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 40