GOP convention==anybody watching? If so, what do you think?

[jazyd]

BE, as a lawyer and person I have admired for a long time , you have really shocked me with your decision. Darrell didn't but you did

So let's throw out Trump, foreign affairs, immigration, economy, security, military, terrorists, attacks on Christianity

Let's talk one thing only. The Supreme Court. As a lawyer are you telling us
You are a liberal and want the court to go hard left as a result of a Hillary win
Or you could care less how the court looks.
You are willing or want the court to go left with the ability to totally change this country and its laws. Forget the 2nd amendment that means so much to citizen, sun at, Dan, Keith and myself. You are okay with the court trashing the constitution on any item they so desire with no recourse, you are ok with gambling your children and all grand children's future. For sone reason I thought you were a Christian, must have been wrong because you are willing to allow the left with the court to do great harm to Christians for generations if not forever.

You see, you are not one vote. You are many. You will have influence on others, one, five, fifteen, who knows. And they in turn influence how many. Your one no vote with your influence on others could result in thousands of people not voting, writing in a person who can't win or voting for Hillary. A no vote, write in vote same as voting for Hillary and oh how she so wants people to do just that. She doesn't care if you vote for her or not, as long as you don't vote for Ztrump.

And as a lawyer you are willing to give her the court, the highest level of your profession

Jefferson predicted this, that those like you would do this and what can happen


Only God can help us and He probably wont

[jazyd]

I have read some bad things about Trump here by people who don't know him or paid attention to what those that do have said about him. He may not be a devout Chridtian but he does things quietly for people that more Christians shoułd be doing

Some might say that Christie, Rudy, Sessions, Carson, Newt only say positive things about Trump to get a position with his administration. I don't think these men would do that. They are very smart individuals that have met with Trump, probably asked tough questions, are not the type to be easily fooled and yet each endorsed him after those sessions. But throw those out if you want, I won't because I trust them. But as a golfer I have heard from Jack Nicklause, Natalie Gulbis, Christie Kerr, all professional golfers who have nothing to gain publicly or some title. I respect each for what they have accomplished in golf and business. Each have endorsed trump..good enough foe me

[CitizenBBN]

The Republican Party is in disarray for a reason . Similar doubts and concerns extend to the well informed right. That speaks volumes imo.

Color me as the uninformed then.

The GOP is in disarray b/c the establishment is losing control and honestly b/c they didn't put in a super-delegate system that allowed the party leaders to rig things to eliminate candidates they don't want to win. Had the DNC not had them and Sanders had gotten traction and won they'd be showing a lot of the same fraying.

but it's about power and control, not the scare tactic of Trump having his finger on some imaginary button that ends the world. That's the same stuff they trotted out for Reagan in 1980 and I listened to 8 years of how his next move was going to cause a nuclear war. Not unsurprisingly, that's a really really high threshold.

THe fit Trump is giving those folks is he's not one of them.

I will say I have little worry about Clinton going to war with Russia. They're one of her largest donors.

[kingcat]

Color me as the uninformed then.

The GOP is in disarray b/c the establishment is losing control and honestly b/c they didn't put in a super-delegate system that allowed the party leaders to rig things to eliminate candidates they don't want to win. Had the DNC not had them and Sanders had gotten traction and won they'd be showing a lot of the same fraying.

but it's about power and control, not the scare tactic of Trump having his finger on some imaginary button that ends the world. That's the same stuff they trotted out for Reagan in 1980 and I listened to 8 years of how his next move was going to cause a nuclear war. Not unsurprisingly, that's a really really high threshold.

THe fit Trump is giving those folks is he's not one of them.

I will say I have little worry about Clinton going to war with Russia. They're one of her largest donors.

I did not call you uninformed anymore than you would call anti Trump conservatives here and elsewhere the same.

My point remains.

[CitizenBBN]

I did not call you uninformed anymore than you would call anti Trump conservatives here and elsewhere the same.

My point remains.

You said informed people on the right share your view, that means uninformed people do not, implicitly bc of their failure to be informed.

I was just having fun w that part, but the idea that I'd take issue w anti trump conservatives is false. I'll Argue they should vote for him but I'd rather have had almost any other of the 16 candidates.

But trump has plenty of warts without having to speculate and say he's going to kill our children in a made up nuclear war.

[bigsky]

I got nothing to add or detract from national politics. Even at a state level, the people we send to the Republican convention, mostly, werent the people I recognized from R party when I got into "Reagan's big tent". They've folded up that tent.

[KSRBEvans]

BE, as a lawyer and person I have admired for a long time , you have really shocked me with your decision. Darrell didn't but you did

So let's throw out Trump, foreign affairs, immigration, economy, security, military, terrorists, attacks on Christianity

Let's talk one thing only. The Supreme Court. As a lawyer are you telling us
You are a liberal and want the court to go hard left as a result of a Hillary win
Or you could care less how the court looks.
You are willing or want the court to go left with the ability to totally change this country and its laws. Forget the 2nd amendment that means so much to citizen, sun at, Dan, Keith and myself. You are okay with the court trashing the constitution on any item they so desire with no recourse, you are ok with gambling your children and all grand children's future. For sone reason I thought you were a Christian, must have been wrong because you are willing to allow the left with the court to do great harm to Christians for generations if not forever.

You see, you are not one vote. You are many. You will have influence on others, one, five, fifteen, who knows. And they in turn influence how many. Your one no vote with your influence on others could result in thousands of people not voting, writing in a person who can't win or voting for Hillary. A no vote, write in vote same as voting for Hillary and oh how she so wants people to do just that. She doesn't care if you vote for her or not, as long as you don't vote for Ztrump.

And as a lawyer you are willing to give her the court, the highest level of your profession

Jefferson predicted this, that those like you would do this and what can happen


Only God can help us and He probably wont

Jazy, I'm disappointed you're not disappointed in Darrell, too. I like to think we're equally disappointing.

The Supreme Court argument is compelling on its face, but for me it ultimately fails for the same reason that Trump's neo-populist approach also fails.

As with many aspects of the Presidency, on judicial/legal matters Trump himself has no coherent philosophy except for how he can use it to bend the system to his will*. (See, for example, his position on changing the 1st Amendment to make it easier for public figures to make defamation cases, or his position on having the military violate the law of war when he orders them to).

I have no confidence that Trump will produce reliably conservative candidates. To do that you have to believe Trump is reliable and conservative, and he's neither.

And for those who believe he'll be reined in by Pence or whomever else, all you have to do is check out his spectacle of a press conference yesterday where less than 24 hours after accepting his party's nomination, he used that all-important time to once again go after Ted Cruz and argue his dad might have been associated with the JFK assassination. My guess is Pence (who was standing behind him in the familiar Chris Christie position) had to be wondering what he got himself into.

This is a guy who said his sister (who favors partial birth abortion) would be a great Supreme Court justice.** He nominally backed away from that after he was called on it (as he did with his statement that he would give military illegal orders that they would obey, "believe me"), but IMHO it's more likely he backs away from these startlingly disturbing positions not because he has changed his mind, but because he was called on them.

So for anyone who's confident in anything Trump will do on judicial issues, I'll just say you're more confident than I am. Those who feel compelled to vote for Trump as the "Not-Hillary," I understand that position and won't try to talk you out of it. I still find both candidates unfit to hold office and can't vote for either.




*--Some will say "Yeah, but Obama's that way, too!" I didn't like it when he did it, either. "2 wrongs," etc.


**--BTW, Trump's speech was the longest since 1972. Number of times he mentioned abortion or pro-life issues: 0.

[bigsky]

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...?smid=fb-share

[kingcat]

You said informed people on the right share your view, that means uninformed people do not, implicitly bc of their failure to be informed.

I was just having fun w that part, but the idea that I'd take issue w anti trump conservatives is false. I'll Argue they should vote for him but I'd rather have had almost any other of the 16 candidates.

But trump has plenty of warts without having to speculate and say he's going to kill our children in a made up nuclear war.

Points well taken, but to read the above implication into my words a person would seemingly have to believe anyone who disagrees is uninformed.

To be clear, I believe that one can be informed and quite capable of distrusting Trump from an informed perspective. Both conservative, liberal, as well as middle of the road.
If I intended to imply anything, it is that disgruntled republicans can be just as informed as the "trumpeteers"

P.S.
My point remains that, in this of all elections, conservatives who might abstain from participating in the process because of the republican candidate, should support the thought that Mr. trump is a particularly dangerous choice.

And that in turn lends at least partial support to my own fears, strengthening the argument against your candidate..

I dunno', perhaps I'll abstain from voting myself. But my concerns are of a different nature with this man than any other candidate in history.

"It" feels like something from 1934 to me. Only a much more powerful entity wanting ultimate power and ethnic cleansing.

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...?smid=fb-share

I agree, which is why I said Trump was the wrong man at the right time. The nation would revel in a Reagan-inspired candidate, a man like Trump who is an outsider.

Instead we get Trump, a populist defined by his very lack of definition, and Hillary, perhaps the most corrupt candidate since the turn of the last century. It's a pretty depressing election no doubt.

[CitizenBBN]

Jazy, I'm disappointed you're not disappointed in Darrell, too. I like to think we're equally disappointing.

The Supreme Court argument is compelling on its face, but for me it ultimately fails for the same reason that Trump's neo-populist approach also fails.

As with many aspects of the Presidency, on judicial/legal matters Trump himself has no coherent philosophy except for how he can use it to bend the system to his will*. (See, for example, his position on changing the 1st Amendment to make it easier for public figures to make defamation cases, or his position on having the military violate the law of war when he orders them to).

I have no confidence that Trump will produce reliably conservative candidates. To do that you have to believe Trump is reliable and conservative, and he's neither.

And for those who believe he'll be reined in by Pence or whomever else, all you have to do is check out his spectacle of a press conference yesterday where less than 24 hours after accepting his party's nomination, he used that all-important time to once again go after Ted Cruz and argue his dad might have been associated with the JFK assassination. My guess is Pence (who was standing there behind him in the familiar Chris Christie position) had to be wondering what he got himself into.

This is a guy who said his sister (who favors partial birth abortion) would be a great Supreme Court justice.** He nominally backed away from that after he was called on it (as he did with his statement that he would give military illegal orders that they would obey, "believe me"), but IMHO it's more likely he backs away from these startlingly disturbing positions not because he has changed his mind, but because he was called on them.

So for anyone who's confident in anything Trump will do on judicial issues, I'll just say you're more confident than I am. Those who feel compelled to vote for Trump as the "Not-Hillary," I understand that position and won't try to talk you out of it. I still find both candidates unfit to hold office and can't vote for either.




*--Some will say "Yeah, but Obama's that way, too!" I didn't like it when he did it, either. "2 wrongs," etc.


**--BTW, Trump's speech was the longest since 1972. Number of times he mentioned abortion or pro-life issues: 0.

I'm disappointed for all of us, does that help?

I agree with every word, and no I can't guarantee Trump will nominate someone I like.

I do think he has come out with a list of names that are solid, and don't include crazy choices like relatives, but there's no guarantee that's how it will go.

But I KNOW who Hillary will pick, and I'm sure I will hate those choices. whereas with Trump there's a better than 50/50 chance I'll be OK with them b/c he'll want to nominate someone who helps him politically and that will be a more strict constructionist person. Not a guarantee, but decently likely.

No, neither candidate is fit to hold office. It's unreal it's come to this, certainly the worst election choices going back more than a century.

The problem is that one of them will still take and hold that office. I'd rather it be someone more influenced by conservatives than Hillary Clinton. Esp. with the SCOTUS picks as long as the GOP has a majority we have a solid chance of getting at least a moderate on the bench. With Hillary a moderate would be our best case scenario, and I dont' think it's very likely.

[KeithKSR]

I have read some bad things about Trump here by people who don't know him or paid attention to what those that do have said about him. He may not be a devout Chridtian but he does things quietly for people that more Christians shoułd be doing

Some might say that Christie, Rudy, Sessions, Carson, Newt only say positive things about Trump to get a position with his administration. I don't think these men would do that. They are very smart individuals that have met with Trump, probably asked tough questions, are not the type to be easily fooled and yet each endorsed him after those sessions. But throw those out if you want, I won't because I trust them. But as a golfer I have heard from Jack Nicklause, Natalie Gulbis, Christie Kerr, all professional golfers who have nothing to gain publicly or some title. I respect each for what they have accomplished in golf and business. Each have endorsed trump..good enough foe me

I've heard stories about Trump doing really nice things for complete strangers who were in need, or who went out of their way to help him or others. Included among these are his paying off mortgages.

[KeithKSR]

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...?smid=fb-share

I found this to be ironic, Republicans were the party of optimism not envy, who looked to the future instead of clinging to the past.

In this article the author writes about how she herself is clinging to the past.

The establishment politicians need to go.

[KeithKSR]

I agree, which is why I said Trump was the wrong man at the right time. The nation would revel in a Reagan-inspired candidate, a man like Trump who is an outsider.

Instead we get Trump, a populist defined by his very lack of definition, and Hillary, perhaps the most corrupt candidate since the turn of the last century. It's a pretty depressing election no doubt.

I'm not so sure that Trump isn't the right guy at the right time. Do we really want an ideologue who is inflexible at this point in time? Trump is more of a pragmatic problem solver who is untethered by the monetary influences and special unterest groups that subjugate most politicians.

Trump seems less wed to social issues, and more focused on the issues of security and economics; two issues most important to voters.

[KeithKSR]

I'm disappointed for all of us, does that help?

I agree with every word, and no I can't guarantee Trump will nominate someone I like.

I do think he has come out with a list of names that are solid, and don't include crazy choices like relatives, but there's no guarantee that's how it will go.

But I KNOW who Hillary will pick, and I'm sure I will hate those choices. whereas with Trump there's a better than 50/50 chance I'll be OK with them b/c he'll want to nominate someone who helps him politically and that will be a more strict constructionist person. Not a guarantee, but decently likely.

No, neither candidate is fit to hold office. It's unreal it's come to this, certainly the worst election choices going back more than a century.

The problem is that one of them will still take and hold that office. I'd rather it be someone more influenced by conservatives than Hillary Clinton. Esp. with the SCOTUS picks as long as the GOP has a majority we have a solid chance of getting at least a moderate on the bench. With Hillary a moderate would be our best case scenario, and I dont' think it's very likely.

Hillary is beholden to the left to nominate a liberal. Trump is at least on record as wanting to nominate a Scalia type Constitutionalist.

[jazyd]

Brian, Trump has already given us his list of judges, Mick is very high on the one from Ala and after reading his credentials I understand why.

I won't give up my vote, not in an election this critical for the nation, my granddaughters and my church along with mu rights

Look how nutty the left is, Kerry says my AC and refrig is as dangerous as ISIS. And those people will select the court.

IMO McCain was much worse than Trump and Romney was further left then Trump, I held my nose and voted for both

[HerbTarlek]

Most importantly, Sorry for the sad times you are going through Bigsky. God bless.
-----------------------------------------------

I,d refuse to sit on a powder keg and spit at firecrackers if I were a Republican.

To trust Trump with the future of our children is a huge risk. He can save his own no matter what major mistake he makes with another nuclear power...yours would be just a part of his failed attempt to run the world.

And if one wants to see a racial face off? Well he is the proven racist candidate....but.the outcome will be devastating to all of us. Trump is no more than an insane gamble from any angle. The day this nation becomes a subsidiary of Trump enterprises, will be the day our nation dies.

You're right. I don't want to be a racist, and I don't want the world to explode! What do I do? I guess I'll vote for Hillary, because that would mean I'm not a racist, right? I think that's how it works. At least that what you, and every democrat says. Because their aren't any other reasons to vote for or against candidates. Nope. Just "world go boom, omg!" or "I hate black people so I'm going to vote for a privileged, aristocratic white woman." I'm sold. Hillary for president!

[Darrell KSR]

Jazy couldn't figure out what character and principle mean, as he has an agenda of attacking yours truly. The principle is there, and shared by good and decent men.

I won't cast a vote for the vile Hillary Clinton, who should be on trial and eventually, in jail. I do place my faith and trust that making principled decisions will lead to a good result, even if it is bitter in the short term.

Jazy, you can resume your regular attacks now.