Yeah, I don't know what the attraction to Trump is either.

I suspect a lot of it is artificially inflated media propaganda; they pretty much want to coronate Trump, so that Hillary can be ensured of a victory come election time. And if they lose then, hey, they've still got Trump; who is basically an off-blue Democrat that they could easily manipulate...

Despite what the media insists though, Trump is about as far from a southern mindset you can find.

I mean, he's a greedy New York big business-man who is well known for pushing people out of their homes, who says "zingers" that are not even close to funny, who has the moral and political convictions a bowl of Jello, who belongs to a liberal Presbyterian church that he rarely, if ever, attends, who has been divorced numerous times for obviously "trophy wife" reasons, and who looks, talks, smells, acts, and obviously is a Yankee***.

Here in Texas at least, these are the sorts of things we despise; I'm sure there are Texans out there who you might find support Trump, but they're are definitely not all that common in either rural or suburban Texas, and they're going against all their principles by doing so.

*** by Yankee of course I mean it in the Texan (non-international) sense; i.e. anyone who is from the North, is foul-mouthed and mean-spirited, and is almost always a moral liberal.

Last edited by Timotheos (2/27/2016 5:19 pm)

Etzelnik wrote:

I would imagine that forming a Rubio/Cruz alliance is the last chance to take out Trump...

I agree.

I'm disappointed with the candidates we seem to have to work with here. I strongly believe we need a real, conciliatory moderate. But surveying the candidates they are either "moderate" only to the degree that they appear to lack principles and are just out-and-out pragmatists or really just are all left or all right to varying degrees. This is why I fear a lackey style candidate - a lackey to Wall Street or big business like Clinton or Trump, imo - is likely to come out ahead because they at least appear to be less ideologically committed and thereby divisive.

Last edited by Timocrates (2/28/2016 12:55 pm)

Etzelnik wrote:

@Timocrates

Is there any particular candidates you have in mind?

In what regard, Etzelnik?

Etzelnik wrote:

Also, everybody. I understand most of you are Republican. If it's Trump vs Hillary what are you going to do?

Pray and at least take some consolation in the entertainment of the spectacle.
 

Etzelnik wrote:

Also, everybody. I understand most of you are Republican. If it's Trump vs Hillary what are you going to do?

I won't vote.

Hillary will dismantle Trump, most likely. He has said so many nice things about her in the past that it will be tough for him to attack her credibility. (I just saw Cruz making this point.) Not to mention, many of his sensibilities remain liberal, and I almost wonder whether they would agree in a debate on some socially liberal policies.

It's somewhat hard to predict. Trump debating conservatives is one thing; Trump debating a liberal is another. His non-specific responses to question relies heavily, for instance, on getting applause. But take an example. Trump was asked in the last debate how he would build a wall and make Mexico pay for it if Mexican politicians currently affirm that there is no way Mexico will pay for the wall. He just responded, "I will," and got a ton of applause. But what if the audience booed or was silent? Debates-with-applause have a tribal dimension that Trump really capitalizes on, and it's hard to say how much of his appeal evaporates without the applause he usually receives.

Also with the news from this morning (declining 3 times to disavow David Duke and the KKK), Trump will have a lot of trouble appealing to a general audience.

Timocrates wrote:

Etzelnik wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

In what regard, Etzelnik?

A candidate you would really root for.

Jesus & Moses! lolol.

You're asking for root for so in my mind that's like my personally ideal candidate. But of course, it's hard for me to spend time thinking of one insofar as practical electability is concerned. But I suppose I would definitely root for that candidate that I believed was really what was or is best for America right now: someone who on social questions was conciliatory and would refuse to cause agitation by swings that further alienate and aggravate those on the left or the right of such issues. Economically I wouldn't mind someone more pragmatic between more socialistic style policies and individualistic one - so long as the criteria for this was really the common good or what's best for the country and not merely what's best for business or big business. I think such a candidate really could be a credible conciliatory leader; whereas, of course, most candidates will claim to be that (whereas it's obvious by their stances that they almost could not possibly do so).

 
Sounds more or less like Kasich to me.