Donald Trump for president?

[Gunther]

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You can just take out the words, "the Republicans in" and it's more accurate 

Yes, totally.  The original point was about Trump's popularity and the establishment's fall in the eyes of citizen Republicans.  They did not do anything to stop this agenda and they allowed Bush to spend like a liberal.  It's been a long time coming.

This is where our anger comes from and why we feel there needs to be a transformational change in DC.  I believe Cruz could have done it but he won't make it.  Trump will knock some heads and make those RINOS work.  They fear him more than Clinton because with her, it's status quo for them; they keep being fat, dumb, happy, rich, and continue to do nothing.

[Dave2512]

Fox is tearing Rubio down in the debate. 

[jamo]

This is like if you could watch a close-up video of dynamite explosion over the span of two hours.

[Dave2512]

Trump got roughed up. Called out for lack of substance a lot. 

[Braivo]

2 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Trump got roughed up. Called out for lack of substance a lot. 

They went at him hard, FoxNews hit job. He survived. Nothing will change. 

[acerimusdux]

Off topic I know, but no they don't stop counting people when they are no longer eligible for benefits.

They count anyone who made any effort at all to find work in the previous month. Anyone who contacted an employer, contacted an employment agency, sent a resume somewhere, filled out an application, placed or answered and ad, or even just contacted friends and relatives in search of work, is counted as actively looking for work.

The rate of employees actually collecting benefits is called the insured unemployment rate, and was at 2% (1.7% seasonally adjusted) as of last weeks report. The number was 2.67 million. 

[saevel25]

8 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

Trump got roughed up. Called out for lack of substance a lot. 

I think this is going to hurt him in the long run.

I am wondering what the overall turn out rate will be for the GE. If Hillary can get the minority vote output % to be higher than the white voting % I think she demolishes Trump.

 

[newtogolf]

Republican establishment, Romney and Fox went after Trump hard, it will be interesting to see if they did any damage to his polling numbers or if they helped them.  

I thought the debate was embarrassing, the agenda was clear, Get Trump!  Rubio, Cruz and the Fox moderators sent barrage after barrage after Trump, some was warranted but most of it is fluff.  

Talking about inconsistency, Romney's speech was the complete opposite of the one he made 4 years ago when he proudly stood next to Trump and accepted his endorsement and I was amazed that Matt Lauer called him out on it.  Four years ago, Romney touted what a great business man Trump was and commended him for all the jobs he created, yesterday he basically said Trump was a business failure and didn't create jobs, yet they criticize Trump for changing positions.  

Trump was flustered throughout parts of the night and rightfully so, overall I think he finished in 2nd with Kasich being the winner of the debate.  

I don't think Kasich has a chance of winning but I commend him for his class, maturity and focus.  He refused time after time to be baited into attacking Trump and used every second he had to promote himself, his experience and views.  It takes a good man to stand alone when everyone else is piling on.  I hope at the very least he gets selected as the V.P. because if any of the three get nominated we will need a guy like Kasich to keep them in check.  

[Jeremie Boop]

3 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

Off topic I know, but no they don't stop counting people when they are no longer eligible for benefits.

They count anyone who made any effort at all to find work in the previous month. Anyone who contacted an employer, contacted an employment agency, sent a resume somewhere, filled out an application, placed or answered and ad, or even just contacted friends and relatives in search of work, is counted as actively looking for work.

The rate of employees actually collecting benefits is called the insured unemployment rate, and was at 2% (1.7% seasonally adjusted) as of last weeks report. The number was 2.67 million. 

How is that counted though, who is taking note of when someone sent an resume/application or asked someone about work? Seems like a pretty impossible thing to really track to me.

 

On topic, I saw a very brief part of Goodmorning America where some woman was talking about how "brave" Romney was for coming out against Trump.... That took "bravery'?

[Braivo]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Republican establishment, Romney and Fox went after Trump hard, it will be interesting to see if they did any damage to his polling numbers or if they helped them.  

I thought the debate was embarrassing, the agenda was clear, Get Trump!  Rubio, Cruz and the Fox moderators sent barrage after barrage after Trump, some was warranted but most of it is fluff.  

Talking about inconsistency, Romney's speech was the complete opposite of the one he made 4 years ago when he proudly stood next to Trump and accepted his endorsement and I was amazed that Matt Lauer called him out on it.  Four years ago, Romney touted what a great business man Trump was and commended him for all the jobs he created, yesterday he basically said Trump was a business failure and didn't create jobs, yet they criticize Trump for changing positions.  

Trump was flustered throughout parts of the night and rightfully so, overall I think he finished in 2nd with Kasich being the winner of the debate.  

I don't think Kasich has a chance of winning but I commend him for his class, maturity and focus.  He refused time after time to be baited into attacking Trump and used every second he had to promote himself, his experience and views.  It takes a good man to stand alone when everyone else is piling on.  I hope at the very least he gets selected as the V.P. because if any of the three get nominated we will need a guy like Kasich to keep them in check.  

It was clearly a hit job on Trump. No one besides Kasich said anything of substance (well Trump did, but he was on the defensive all night). How many infographics did they show for other candidates? Then they basically show an anti-Trump campaign ad AS PART OF THE DEBATE! I don't think it will hurt him, everyone with a brain could see it was a hit job and won't lose any sleep over it.

If there is any loser it was Rubio, he looked lost and like he was on speed or something. Sweating and twitching. He is done. This is down to Trump / Cruz. Kasich is a decent guy but has not chance to win. He won't be VP either because Trump needs someone in legislature to help get legislation passed, probably Sessions, although he could tap Cruz for the job as he is strong on immigration as well. 

[Dave2512]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I think this is going to hurt him in the long run.

IMO it's hurting him now. He's just a third of the way there and his personality over policy act is getting old. 

Breathe Donald, count to ten. 

[Elmer]

Was it me or did Trump look absolutely presidential last night?
Making statements like "they will listen to me!" 
I cannot wait for President Trump to take the office and lead us to greatness!
 In his sizable hands America will be great again!

[Dave2512]

1 minute ago, Elmer said:

Was it me or did Trump look absolutely presidential last night?
Making statements like "they will listen to me!" 
I cannot wait for President Trump to take the office and lead us to greatness!
 In his sizable hands America will be great again!

Ha yeah they will listen stuff was very odd. 

Q: How will you do that Mr. Trump?

A: They will listen to me, believe me!

 

[saevel25]

20 minutes ago, Braivo said:

It was clearly a hit job on Trump. No one besides Kasich said anything of substance (well Trump did, but he was on the defensive all night). How many infographics did they show for other candidates? Then they basically show an anti-Trump campaign ad AS PART OF THE DEBATE!

You know what Fox should have done. Asked him no questions. Just left him alone. Just put him barely on camera and don't even acknowledge he was there. That would be interesting to see the reaction on that.

[Abu3baid]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

You know what Fox should have done. Asked him no questions. Just left him alone. Just put him barely on camera and don't even acknowledge he was there. That would be interesting to see the reaction on that.

I don't even know what's a hit job?

[saevel25]

17 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

I don't even know what's a hit job?

It might from before this. The reference is when the mob put a "hit" out on someone to take them out (kill).

When he referenced hit job it's basically meaning the GOP establishment used Fox to try to do damage to Trump to take him out of the race. The GOP put a political hit out on Trump.

 

[RandallT]

As a former Naval officer, I cringed about the part where they asked Trump about issuing illegal orders to the military. The word "cringe" is not even close to strong enough.

The only answer is to say that you'd never ever ever give an order that is illegal. But Trump says something to the effect that his subordinates will bend to his will, or something like that, implying that he would insist on it even if the order is illegal. Transcript below.

http://time.com/4247496/republican-debate-transcript-eleventh-detroit-fox-news/

Quote

BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they’re illegal.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding. This really started with Ted, a question was asked of Ted last — two debates ago about waterboarding. And Ted was, you know, having a hard time with that question, to be totally honest with you. They then came to me, what do you think of waterboarding? I said it’s fine. And if we want to go stronger, I’d go stronger, too, because, frankly… (APPLAUSE) … that’s the way I feel. Can you imagine — can you imagine these people, these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we’re having a hard problem with waterboarding? We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.

BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?

TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.

BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families?

TRUMP: Well, look, you know, when a family flies into the World Trade Center, a man flies into the World Trade Center, and his family gets sent back to where they were going — and I think most of you know where they went — and, by the way, it wasn’t Iraq — but they went back to a certain territory, they knew what was happening. The wife knew exactly what was happening. They left two days early, with respect to the World Trade Center, and they went back to where they went, and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon, and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane. All right?

And the last bit about the families of the 9/11 terrorists being sent back home before the event has been shown to be mostly a myth, if not fully a myth. But that's secondary to my point.

I can put up with a lot of bluster from Trump (I feel I've been pretty fair to Trump in this thread, although he didn't get my primary vote), and I get that he is mostly staking out initial negotiating positions so that he can get the best deal he can on issues he thinks are important. But to stake out an initial position that giving an illegal order like the murder of a terrorist's family member is in the realm of possibility? Hmmm.

The best I can come up with is that he assumed any order would be legal, so he felt no need to clarify that. Maybe he would only order the killing of a family member if it were proven that the family members were involved in a plot? You can parse the answers in bold above a way where he is not advocating issuing illegal orders... but he comes pretty close. He surely doesn't go out of his way to comfort us that he'd never give an illegal order.

[Dave2512]

Does Carson officially suspend today announcing he endorses Trump? It would be headlines going into Sat. primaries all the way to Tue.