I was right: President Elect Trump

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/

[Tennesseer]

I remember you telling us about the full stadium.

Aug 22, 2015 12:15:09 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I was there.  Stadium was full, and there were as many people outside as inside. I would only add that the lead up was a long, boring procession of local pols and community groups- so there was a lot of milling about until Sweet Home Alabama came on.  The sound sucked, so I didn't actually hear much of what he said. And- Bernie Sanders is campaigning in friendly territory. This is a Manhattan real estate developer in Mobile- c'mon down, Bernie. See how you do.

The full stadium in Mobile while Trump addresses the crowd.

.

[Deleted]

"What isn't certain is how many people showed up and listened to Trump's 54-minute speech at Ladd-Peebles Stadium. Attendance estimates have ranged from as low as 18,000 to as high as 30,000, according to Mobile Mayor Sandy Stimpson's Chief of Staff Colby Cooper on behalf of the city of Mobile.

There was no actual attendance taken during the event."

www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/08/why_wasnt_there_an_accurate_cr.html

[Tennesseer]

May 8, 2016 19:51:03 GMT -5 oped said:

"What isn't certain is how many people showed up and listened to Trump's 54-minute speech at Ladd-Peebles Stadium. Attendance estimates have ranged from as low as 18,000 to as high as 30,000, according to Mobile Mayor Sandy Stimpson's Chief of Staff Colby Cooper on behalf of the city of Mobile.

There was no actual attendance taken during the event."

www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/08/why_wasnt_there_an_accurate_cr.html

If all the 43, 000 seats of the stadium were filled (and not even counting the people standing in the field) as the poster states, and just as many people were outside as inside the stadium,, then there must have been over 100,000 peple there that night.

[Opti]

May 8, 2016 17:35:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 8, 2016 11:51:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he hasn't DONE a fucking thing.  that is precisely the issue i have with him.

if you mean lowering the level of the debate to the point where a 4th grader can understand it, then yes, that is indeed an accomplishment of sorts.

You're goofy.  You don't understand how negotiation works.  We are now having a national debate about illegal aliens, islam, the economy, foreign policy-- I wonder if you noticed, anti-war foreign policy (not kooky isolationist, never ever pull the trigger-- but anti-war) and the intersection of all these issues which would have been unthinkable just a year ago.

We aren't having a national debate on those items. Some people might be talking more about them, but there is no reasoned debate. Perhaps you can tell me what's unthinkable about linking illegal aliens, Muslims from foreign countries with an isolationist or even bomb them all policy.

Unthinkable. Not at all. The first two have been bubbling way before Trump. He simply decided to exploit them as talking points to get supporters and air time.

[Opti]

Not sure why Hillary's jacket bothers VB so much. Not my style, but don't see anything bad about it.

[billisonboard]

May 8, 2016 20:09:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

Not sure why Hillary's jacket bothers VB so much. Not my style, but don't see anything bad about it.

I think it is the image on the back
:

[djAdvocate]

May 8, 2016 17:35:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 8, 2016 11:51:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he hasn't DONE a fucking thing.  that is precisely the issue i have with him.

if you mean lowering the level of the debate to the point where a 4th grader can understand it, then yes, that is indeed an accomplishment of sorts.

We are now having a national debate about illegal aliens, islam, the economy, foreign policy--

once i eliminated your personal remarks, this is what was left.  Trump talks a lot about those issues, but has almost no concrete proposals to fix them- and the ones he does have are utterly atrocious.

[djAdvocate]

May 8, 2016 17:36:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 8, 2016 16:43:49 GMT -5 oped said:

Fun reading this afternoon... persons i rarely ever bring myself to read, lol.

www.nydailynews.com/opinion/rick-wilson-donald-trump-means-article-1.2628025

www.theblaze.com/contributions/trump-fans-if-hillary-becomes-president-youll-only-have-yourselves-to-blame/

Glenn Beck is in the middle of a mental breakdown before a national audience.

he has been in the middle of that personal crisis for as long as i can remember.

[djAdvocate]

May 8, 2016 17:37:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 8, 2016 11:59:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how do his rallies compare to Sanders?

They don't.  There's nothing close to the crowds Trump is drawing. 

i don't believe that your answer is correct.  did you actually check that?

[djAdvocate]

May 8, 2016 19:59:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 8, 2016 19:51:03 GMT -5 oped said:

"What isn't certain is how many people showed up and listened to Trump's 54-minute speech at Ladd-Peebles Stadium. Attendance estimates have ranged from as low as 18,000 to as high as 30,000, according to Mobile Mayor Sandy Stimpson's Chief of Staff Colby Cooper on behalf of the city of Mobile.

There was no actual attendance taken during the event."

www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/08/why_wasnt_there_an_accurate_cr.html

If all the 43, 000 seats of the stadium were filled (and not even counting the people standing in the field) as the poster states, and just as many people were outside as inside the stadium,, then there must have been over 100,000 peple there that night.

the attendance was approximately 25,000.  this is actually a case study in how Trump works.  he spends as much time exaggerating his anatomy as he does his audience(s).

i believe that Sander's rallies have been approximately as well attended as Trumps.  if anyone can conclusively say otherwise, i would happily entertain that proof.  note: saying that you think it is not true is not proof. 

[Tennesseer]

May 8, 2016 21:55:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 8, 2016 19:59:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If all the 43, 000 seats of the stadium were filled (and not even counting the people standing in the field) as the poster states, and just as many people were outside as inside the stadium,, then there must have been over 100,000 peple there that night.

the attendance was approximately 25,000.  this is actually a case study in how Trump works.  he spends as much time exaggerating his anatomy as he does his audience(s).

i believe that Sander's rallies have been approximately as well attended as Trumps.  if anyone can conclusively say otherwise, i would happily entertain that proof.  note: saying that you think it is not true is not proof. 

Not all of us were hypnotized.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 8, 2016 21:55:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 8, 2016 19:59:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If all the 43, 000 seats of the stadium were filled (and not even counting the people standing in the field) as the poster states, and just as many people were outside as inside the stadium,, then there must have been over 100,000 peple there that night.

the attendance was approximately 25,000.  this is actually a case study in how Trump works.  he spends as much time exaggerating his anatomy as he does his audience(s).

i believe that Sander's rallies have been approximately as well attended as Trumps.  if anyone can conclusively say otherwise, i would happily entertain that proof.  note: saying that you think it is not true is not proof. 

Was Trump exaggerating when he won every single county in five states, and every single Congressional district in PA and blew past Romney's record primary vote total with 6 states to go?

Actual republican turnout in Georgia was 1,295,964 (1.295 million) the increase was 44.7%

Actual Republican Voter turnout so far 26,561,719 (an increase almost 50%) - www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Actual Democrat Voter turnout so far 22,355,221 (a decrease of around 30%) – www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

In 2008, the highwater mark for Democrat turnout, Barack Obama won in ’08 with 66.5 million / McCain 58.1.
In 2008, 21.9 million Republicans voted in the primary and 58.1 million voted in the general election (265% increase). In 2012, 19.2 million primary -vs- 59.2 million in the general (308% increase).
In 2012 Barack Obama won in ’12 with 62.3 million / Romney 59.2



If the 2016 increases are even remotely maintained given the scope of the current increase in Republican Primary participation, the general election vote would be through the roof-- we could be looking at 73,272,595 Republicans voting in November WITHOUT factoring in an increase in the African-American vote for Trump (a virtual certainty), and Democrat cross-over voters from places like WV where Clinton just surrendered the race to Trump.  

The Monster Vote may well be real, this time.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I believe I pointed this out before in this thread, but it's been awhile: Make America Great Again is 2016 Hope and Change. You Dems had to deal with your own asshole and his moronic hordes- now it's our turn. And now as then-- my gut feeling (and the numbers) show there'll be no stopping Trump.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Note To Stuart Stevens and the never trump coalition: The Monster Vote is Very Real
theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/05/09/attn-stuart-stevens-and-the-never-trump-coalition-the-monster-vote-is-very-real/

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2016 18:06:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 8, 2016 21:55:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the attendance was approximately 25,000.  this is actually a case study in how Trump works.  he spends as much time exaggerating his anatomy as he does his audience(s).

i believe that Sander's rallies have been approximately as well attended as Trumps.  if anyone can conclusively say otherwise, i would happily entertain that proof.  note: saying that you think it is not true is not proof. 

Was Trump exaggerating when he won every single county in five states, and every single Congressional district in PA and blew past Romney's record primary vote total with 6 states to go?.

i didn't ask you about any of that.  i asked you how Sander's rally sizes compared to The Donald.

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2016 18:08:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I believe I pointed this out before in this thread, but it's been awhile: Make America Great Again is 2016 Hope and Change. You Dems had to deal with your own asshole and his moronic hordes- now it's our turn. And now as then-- my gut feeling (and the numbers) show there'll be no stopping Trump.

never underestimate the power of morons to not vote.

[Deleted]

May 9, 2016 18:06:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 8, 2016 21:55:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the attendance was approximately 25,000.  this is actually a case study in how Trump works.  he spends as much time exaggerating his anatomy as he does his audience(s).

i believe that Sander's rallies have been approximately as well attended as Trumps.  if anyone can conclusively say otherwise, i would happily entertain that proof.  note: saying that you think it is not true is not proof. 

Was Trump exaggerating when he won every single county in five states, and every single Congressional district in PA and blew past Romney's record primary vote total with 6 states to go?

Actual republican turnout in Georgia was 1,295,964 (1.295 million) the increase was 44.7%

Actual Republican Voter turnout so far 26,561,719 (an increase almost 50%) - www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Actual Democrat Voter turnout so far 22,355,221 (a decrease of around 30%) – www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

In 2008, the highwater mark for Democrat turnout, Barack Obama won in ’08 with 66.5 million / McCain 58.1.
In 2008, 21.9 million Republicans voted in the primary and 58.1 million voted in the general election (265% increase). In 2012, 19.2 million primary -vs- 59.2 million in the general (308% increase).
In 2012 Barack Obama won in ’12 with 62.3 million / Romney 59.2



If the 2016 increases are even remotely maintained given the scope of the current increase in Republican Primary participation, the general election vote would be through the roof-- we could be looking at 73,272,595 Republicans voting in November WITHOUT factoring in an increase in the African-American vote for Trump (a virtual certainty), and Democrat cross-over voters from places like WV where Clinton just surrendered the race to Trump.  

The Monster Vote may well be real, this time.

You can't just make up associations. There is no correlation between primary and general voting numbers. Primary numbers are associated to competitiveness of the race.

[Pants]

May 9, 2016 19:07:36 GMT -5 oped said:

May 9, 2016 18:06:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Was Trump exaggerating when he won every single county in five states, and every single Congressional district in PA and blew past Romney's record primary vote total with 6 states to go?

Actual republican turnout in Georgia was 1,295,964 (1.295 million) the increase was 44.7%

Actual Republican Voter turnout so far 26,561,719 (an increase almost 50%) - www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Actual Democrat Voter turnout so far 22,355,221 (a decrease of around 30%) – www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

In 2008, the highwater mark for Democrat turnout, Barack Obama won in ’08 with 66.5 million / McCain 58.1.
In 2008, 21.9 million Republicans voted in the primary and 58.1 million voted in the general election (265% increase). In 2012, 19.2 million primary -vs- 59.2 million in the general (308% increase).
In 2012 Barack Obama won in ’12 with 62.3 million / Romney 59.2



If the 2016 increases are even remotely maintained given the scope of the current increase in Republican Primary participation, the general election vote would be through the roof-- we could be looking at 73,272,595 Republicans voting in November WITHOUT factoring in an increase in the African-American vote for Trump (a virtual certainty), and Democrat cross-over voters from places like WV where Clinton just surrendered the race to Trump.  

The Monster Vote may well be real, this time.

You can't just make up associations.

I mean, you've met Paul...?

[Deleted]

True that.

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2016 19:07:36 GMT -5 oped said:

May 9, 2016 18:06:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Was Trump exaggerating when he won every single county in five states, and every single Congressional district in PA and blew past Romney's record primary vote total with 6 states to go?

Actual republican turnout in Georgia was 1,295,964 (1.295 million) the increase was 44.7%

Actual Republican Voter turnout so far 26,561,719 (an increase almost 50%) - www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Actual Democrat Voter turnout so far 22,355,221 (a decrease of around 30%) – www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

In 2008, the highwater mark for Democrat turnout, Barack Obama won in ’08 with 66.5 million / McCain 58.1.
In 2008, 21.9 million Republicans voted in the primary and 58.1 million voted in the general election (265% increase). In 2012, 19.2 million primary -vs- 59.2 million in the general (308% increase).
In 2012 Barack Obama won in ’12 with 62.3 million / Romney 59.2



If the 2016 increases are even remotely maintained given the scope of the current increase in Republican Primary participation, the general election vote would be through the roof-- we could be looking at 73,272,595 Republicans voting in November WITHOUT factoring in an increase in the African-American vote for Trump (a virtual certainty), and Democrat cross-over voters from places like WV where Clinton just surrendered the race to Trump.  

The Monster Vote may well be real, this time.

You can't just make up associations. There is no correlation between primary and general voting numbers. Primary numbers are associated to competitiveness of the race.

it is a measure of party enthusiasm, and it does help in the GE.  but here is the most important thing:

Democrats and Republicans are a distant second and third to Independents, many of whom didn't even vote in the primary.  it would be interesting to see a breakdown of independent voters in the primary, but i have not seen one, yet.

[Deleted]

www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/mar/06/david-brooks/david-brooks-said-primary-turnout-doesnt-predict-g/

fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2016 19:21:59 GMT -5 oped said:

www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/mar/06/david-brooks/david-brooks-said-primary-turnout-doesnt-predict-g/

fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

interesting.  thanks for posting.

[tallguy]

May 9, 2016 19:28:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 9, 2016 19:21:59 GMT -5 oped said:

www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/mar/06/david-brooks/david-brooks-said-primary-turnout-doesnt-predict-g/

fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

interesting.  thanks for posting.

Linked at the bottom of the page of the fivethirtyeight article is an article by a former White House staffer under George W. Bush who also later worked for Congressional Republicans.  A lot of interesting things in there, such as:

This desire for control of the presidency, and the belief that any Republican is better than any Democrat, is why many Republicans are now embracing Trump. They claim that the GOP needs to coalesce behind Mr. Trump because he is a better alternative than Hillary Clinton. He is not.

To begin with, Mr. Trump has autocratic tendencies, and openly admires tyrants such as Vladimir Putin. In fact, his narcissism and cult of personality leadership style seem better suited to countries like North Korea and Uzbekistan than America. Trump has repeatedly attacked core conservative principles such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and American leadership on the world stage. He has incited the use of violence against his detractors, called on America to commit war crimes, and suggested the possibility of civil unrest if he is denied the GOP nomination.

Mr. Trump proclaims that he’s going to make America great again, but can’t provide any realistic plans for doing so; instead, he frequently resorts to scapegoating outsiders, foreigners, and minorities. The few policies that Trump has articulated would make America less safe, trample upon our most fundamental rights, and appeal to the basest instincts of the American people.

While I disagree with many of Hillary Clinton’s policies, she is clearly qualified to be president. She possesses judgment and self-restraint. She does not have a track record of irrational, risky, and unsound business decisions and public comments. She has a long record of public service. She can be trusted with controlling our military and nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump cannot.

Any Republican who claims that it’s better to elect Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton either lacks proper judgment, or has become so blinded by partisan ideology that they have lost objectivity.          A message for my fellow Republicans:

 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 9, 2016 19:19:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 9, 2016 19:07:36 GMT -5 oped said:

You can't just make up associations. There is no correlation between primary and general voting numbers. Primary numbers are associated to competitiveness of the race.

it is a measure of party enthusiasm, and it does help in the GE.  but here is the most important thing:

Democrats and Republicans are a distant second and third to Independents, many of whom didn't even vote in the primary.  it would be interesting to see a breakdown of independent voters in the primary, but i have not seen one, yet.

We'll find out where they go, but Romney won independents handily.  If it's Sanders- nope.  We'll see if independents break for a thoroughly corrupt, America-hating Alinkyite member of the establishment in an anti-establishment year, that but for "super delegates" would be gone already, in an anti-establishment year. Or maybe they've had e-fucking-nough, and they wake up and figure out they've actually got a champion?

and in the words of Scott Adams, "Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American, Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males. Clinton is well on her way to owning the identities of angry women, beta males, immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities.


“If this were poker, which hand looks stronger to you for a national election?” 


I don't know what will happen, but I know where I'd put my money after the last year.  

I mean, let's just look at actual events, shall we? Let's dispense with predictions and just observe.  In a 17-way race, Trump was consistently polling in the 30's.  All spin aside, that's why I posted this thread in the first place.  Then, when it was down to basically two-- the conventional wisdom that given a choice, voters would break for the challenger. In reality when the field was whittled down, Trump broke clean through the 50% mark, through the 60% mark and by the time the dust settled in the Northeast, Trump had more votes than Mitt Romney had by the time the primary was finished in 2012.  He's still pumping up the totals, too.

Now, pay careful attention to the very next thing that happened: Trump gave Hillary a few love taps, and she hasn't won a primary since Trump became the presumptive nominee.  She was upset in Indiana the day he clinched it (well, you know- became the presumptive nominee).

And then, I return you to the fact that Trump knows people are completely irrational (even you), so he's running an emotional campaign, and as a result- the facts don't matter, and since the facts don't matter- he can't ever really be wrong.  Unfortunately for his opponents, the rules that don't apply to him apply to them.  It's going to continue to frustrate people right through the November landslide.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-07/dilbert-creators-6-reasons-why-trump-will-win-landslide-november

I don't say this as a Trump supporter. I say this as a Cruz Crew guy.  I say this as a conservative who has been thinking that if we could just educate people, lay out the facts, find the right candidate who is talented enough to persuade people-- they'll all see the light and we'll win.  I thought Romney didn't win because how the hell can the author of ObamaCare make the case against it?  However, how can I reasonably hold to that position when Trump, who has flip flopped on national healthcare more times this morning than Romney ever did?  At this point, it's an irrational argument. So, I have to accept that everything I took for granted in marketing applies to politics. For some reason (irrationality?) I have always just thought politics isn't marketing, that won't work in politics.  Why did I think this? I don't know, I guess people haven't tried it yet. Now that a guy is running over everyone using deep psy-op marketing and cutting through opponents like a hot knife through butter, I see the light.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 9, 2016 20:42:36 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 9, 2016 19:28:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

interesting.  thanks for posting.

Linked at the bottom of the page of the fivethirtyeight article is an article by a former White House staffer under George W. Bush who also later worked for Congressional Republicans.  A lot of interesting things in there, such as:

This desire for control of the presidency, and the belief that any Republican is better than any Democrat, is why many Republicans are now embracing Trump. They claim that the GOP needs to coalesce behind Mr. Trump because he is a better alternative than Hillary Clinton. He is not.

To begin with, Mr. Trump has autocratic tendencies, and openly admires tyrants such as Vladimir Putin. In fact, his narcissism and cult of personality leadership style seem better suited to countries like North Korea and Uzbekistan than America. Trump has repeatedly attacked core conservative principles such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and American leadership on the world stage. He has incited the use of violence against his detractors, called on America to commit war crimes, and suggested the possibility of civil unrest if he is denied the GOP nomination.

Mr. Trump proclaims that he’s going to make America great again, but can’t provide any realistic plans for doing so; instead, he frequently resorts to scapegoating outsiders, foreigners, and minorities. The few policies that Trump has articulated would make America less safe, trample upon our most fundamental rights, and appeal to the basest instincts of the American people.

While I disagree with many of Hillary Clinton’s policies, she is clearly qualified to be president. She possesses judgment and self-restraint. She does not have a track record of irrational, risky, and unsound business decisions and public comments. She has a long record of public service. She can be trusted with controlling our military and nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump cannot.

Any Republican who claims that it’s better to elect Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton either lacks proper judgment, or has become so blinded by partisan ideology that they have lost objectivity.          A message for my fellow Republicans:

 

Do you expect the Bush team to admit they were wrong about Iraq?

Are they "standing on principle" or trying to prevent the election of a president whose policies might repudiate a 15 year long war started by Bush, that cost $4.7 trillion, and thousands of lives, tens of thousands of injuries?

[Opti]

May 9, 2016 21:08:20 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 9, 2016 20:42:36 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Linked at the bottom of the page of the fivethirtyeight article is an article by a former White House staffer under George W. Bush who also later worked for Congressional Republicans.  A lot of interesting things in there, such as:

 

Do you expect the Bush team to admit they were wrong about Iraq?

Are they "standing on principle" or trying to prevent the election of a president whose policies might repudiate a 15 year long war started by Bush, that cost $4.7 trillion, and thousands of lives, tens of thousands of injuries?

Do you realize 2008 was supposed to be the election of such a President?

[tallguy]

May 9, 2016 21:08:20 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 9, 2016 20:42:36 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Linked at the bottom of the page of the fivethirtyeight article is an article by a former White House staffer under George W. Bush who also later worked for Congressional Republicans.  A lot of interesting things in there, such as:

 

Do you expect the Bush team to admit they were wrong about Iraq?

Are they "standing on principle" or trying to prevent the election of a president whose policies might repudiate a 15 year long war started by Bush, that cost $4.7 trillion, and thousands of lives, tens of thousands of injuries?

That seems like a complete non sequitur.  You want to maybe tie that to something in the article I cited, so we know specifically what wrong-headed thing to respond to?  

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 8, 2016 21:49:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 8, 2016 17:35:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We are now having a national debate about illegal aliens, islam, the economy, foreign policy--

once i eliminated your personal remarks, this is what was left.  Trump talks a lot about those issues, but has almost no concrete proposals to fix them- and the ones he does have are utterly atrocious.

Something else I like about Trump. This stupid canard that _________________________(fill in GOP candidate) has no concrete proposals to fix them.  It's ALWAYS horseshit- and that's leaving out the fact that not every goofy liberal idea needs a counter proposal. Sometimes, the answer is: NO!  Trump has put out PLENTY of detailed, substantive proposals.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 9, 2016 21:27:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 9, 2016 21:08:20 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Do you expect the Bush team to admit they were wrong about Iraq?

Are they "standing on principle" or trying to prevent the election of a president whose policies might repudiate a 15 year long war started by Bush, that cost $4.7 trillion, and thousands of lives, tens of thousands of injuries?

That seems like a complete non sequitur.  You want to maybe tie that to something in the article I cited, so we know specifically what wrong-headed thing to respond to?  

Nope. And I don't have to. And that is my point.