ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
What's his end game though?   I think he enjoys the spotlight, but I doubt he really wants the job. I'm sure there is a bit of championing ideas he favors, but I think it's more brand recognition than anything else. But to maintain his brand he can't back down, so where does that road take him? And are we all prepared to go down that road with him?

 kurtster wrote: 
Trump is not an idiot, and to be honest, when you distill what he says (take the bluster out of it), there is some content there that could be refreshing. But he's an asshole, a showman, any clarity of thought gets larded with sarcasm and bachelor party comedy... he can't win. 

But what if he did? What if he were president? First, his cabinet and staff would always be in turmoil. We're talking about people who are probably more qualified to do the job of President, save for the fact that they aren't charismatic enough to get elected. In business, his underlings suck it up and stay on (or do they? I don't know) despite the abuse because it's the best job they've ever had. In government, most of those people will stay long enough to get their bona fides, then jump ship for the private sector asap.
 
And aside from that, I have no doubt that some of his shoulder-shrugging smugness would lead to a second Nixon-level Long National Nightmare. 

 RichardPrins wrote: 
I think this is tremendous and even though I think trying to implement socialism on the US will work in the same manner as herding cats, the optics of watching such a hugely popular candidate drawing enormous crowds and excitement getting crushed by the cold Clinton machine will inch us closer to the eventual inevitable political revolution our country so desperately needs.  People are waking up. Go Sanders, Go Johnson and Go Stein!  Like it really even matters.

 kurtster wrote: 
Trump may as well be on the Clinton payroll, no one benefits more from every word he utters. And as always I will add the disclaimer like it really even matters to every comment in this thread.

 Beaker wrote: 
I'll cross that bridge when and if we get there.  

I can say right now that I would not vote for Bush.

Right now, Trump is saying more of what I want someone to say than anyone else.  Illegal immigration for starters.  Said it before, the single most important topic for me.  Now on ISIS, I hear him say that he would blow up the oil fields.  I said here somewhere a year ago, we should do that.  As long as he keeps saying what I want to hear, I will listen.  Doesn't mean that I am believing what I hear.  But I am willing to listen to him, which is a hell of a lot more than most are willing to do with Trump.  Few are even taking him seriously, writing him off as a clown trying to sell books.

The others I am listening to are Paul, Fiorina, Carson, Kasich, Walker and Cruz.  And I'm keeping an eye on Bush, too.  He has the most bucks, besides Trump.

We have a long way to go.  I am willing to take Trump seriously at the moment.  I hear a lot of common sense coming from him.  He is starting to expand on positions.  Trump is the only one who could land in the White House who is not bought and paid for before he arrives.  That means an awful lot in the big picture, especially when it comes to delivering on campaign promises.  So far the only two Repubs running who have tried to make good on their promises while running are Paul and Cruz, both Tea Partiers.

 Beaker wrote: 

kurtster wrote:
Perhaps if I had said nearly the only instead of about the only, I may have been more clear.  Make no mistake, I see you as a right leaning moderate gentleman, but to invoke conservative seems a tad of a stretch.  You appear to me as more of an establishment supporter.  You have come down on the Tea Party.

I was actually speaking past you on this one, so no need to be upset with me on this, not that I think you are.

 Beaker wrote: 
Watching the same interview apparently.  You hear blather.  I'm hearing some kernels of thought amongst it all.

Oh and a correcto mundo.  I just heard him say he was a conservative.  At this point it doesn't really matter to me how conservative he is; its beyond that. 

 kurtster wrote: 
And you think the liberal elites(TM) are smug and arrogant!?!?

 kurtster wrote: 
If you post ANYTHING here,that will be the response you get,no matter what the topic.

 Mets lost?You hate foreigners because they have a pitcher who is Latino.

Natalie Merchant sucks?You are a misogynist.

Obama is Obama?You are a racist.

Dirty air?It's your fault because,oh I don't know,it just is.

I think its really funny watching all you non conservatives trying to figure out what is going on with Trump.  His thinking and methods defy your concepts of logic.

As about the only self identified conservative small l libertarian who regularly participates in these threads, I don't think ya'll will never ever understand.  Go ahead with your thinking that all conservatives are racist religious zealots, hate women, foreigners, homosexuals and want dirty water, dirty air and want the planet to wilt away in the sweltering heat caused by CO2.  As long as you believe all that, y'all will never get it.

As about the only self identified conservative small l libertarian who regularly participates in these threads, I do not think Trump is a "conservative".  I don't believe that he ever said he was.  He's just saying what he is for.  Y'all are hearing, but your not listening.

Have a nice day. 

 Beaker wrote: 
She certainly understands the concept of failing upward, maybe she would do well in government.

 Steely_D wrote: 

 Rod wrote:
Why a huge Los Angeles crowd turned out for Bernie Sanders - LA Times

 islander wrote: 
:thumbsup:

 Beaker wrote: 
Neither are Rosie O'Donnell or Chris Matthews.  

Po Tay Toe, Po Tah Toe. I do it too, I just couldn't resist pointing out the irony in your single post there.  I don't think I'm up to eleventy-billion though, so maybe it's not about me. 

 Beaker wrote: 
And I bet most Democrats aren't very fond of Ralph Nader. But part of the dysfunction of our two party system lies in the "well anyone from our party is better than anyone from theirs" that this kind of loyalty pledge implies. I would love to hear a candidate say "of course I am the most qualified, but if I don not win the nomination, I will put my support to the next best candidate no matter what party banner that person is waving". Gary Johnson is by any number of measures better qualified that Rick Perry, why wouldn't you expect Trump/Rubio/Walker/Carson/Firorina et. all to support him instead?  If not then they are putting party ahead of country and that should be a deal killer.

 Beaker wrote: 
Irony, you has it.

 Beaker wrote: 

"You've called women you don't like, 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs,' and 'disgusting animals,'" Ms Kelly began before she was quickly interrupted by Mr Trump.

"Only Rosie O'Donnell," he said.
=============

You fell for the deflection. Doesn't matter who she was or what her political history with Trump may be. 

 kurtster wrote: 

 Rod wrote: 
Good on ya !  Hope it is peaceful.