Republican's need to make up their minds.......

I just watched a focus group from NH speaking about Donald Trump. According to recent polls Mr. Trump is top dog in the Republican primary race.

One of the most outstanding comments coming from a woman in the focus group was the Donald Trump stands for success.

OK, this is the time for Republican's to decide what success means.

Is the Don successful at marriage ?.....NO
At family life ?......NO
Respecting women and minorities ? .......NO
Respecting anyone for that matter ? (let us not forget that The Don's various businesses have filed for bankruptcy four times....this hurts the little guy. Keeps the Don on top but fleeces anyone he may own money).....NOPE
Manners and/or respect ?........NO

The male Palin.

So what is the Republican party about ? Donald Trump is the meanest talking, nastiest, and has the least amount of class, when he opens his mouth, than any other candidate in the race. By his own statements he has declared his daughter to be beautiful and he would date her if she wasn't his daughter. A woman nursing her child disgusts him, minorities are primarily rapists and criminals. He is on top.

Most Republican's I know will vote Republican even is Trump is on the ticket. Why ? Is this really the real deal ? What put this man on the top is so removed from any biblical teachings that it is almost the opposite of all things that are spiritually valuable.

Another comment that was glaring was the idea that voting for the Don would put a fence up between Mexico and the U.S. The only "common sense" thing to do according the gentle man who was supporting Mr. Trump.
Really ?

What is a Republican ? I am confused ! It would appear to me that The Don is the real deal. That the other candidates, those who claim to adhere to Christian principles and values are only a front for the other Don's out there. The confusing thing is the fact that though many of us know this, it is a mystery as to how the Christian value voter's have put him on the top without being fed the lies and BS that goes with all the religious rhetoric that usually comes along with the Party platform. It does not match up with all the new abortion/birth control laws and the uptick in private Christian schools, whining about all kinds of supposed war's on Christianity. What biblical figure is Trump ? Where does he stand in a Christian value Party ? Or are we finally seeing what it is really all about ? The self....money....power and admiration for anyone who has both ? Something is twisted......hurts my head !

Q: "Have you ever asked God for forgiveness?"

Trump: "I'm not sure I have. I just go on and try and do a better job from there. I don't think so. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don't. Now, when I take, you know, when we go, and church and when I drink my little wine--which is about the only wine I drink--and have my little cracker, I guess that's a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed, OK? But, you know, to me that's important, I do that, but in terms of officially, I could say, 'Absolutely!' and everybody, I don’t think in terms of that. I think in terms of, let's go on and let’s make it right."

> 2

All of that, especially "I don’t bring God into that picture. I don't." plus also the "drink my little wine" and "have my little cracker".

These quotes would be run, oh, about a million times in the general election by the democratic pacs, on every news channel on the television machine.

The Donald, in pissing off all pious Catholics and all pious evangelicals, will lose every state, possibly, but only 40 states or so, best case scenario. It would be the end for the republican party on a national level. They might even have trouble hanging on as a regionally-successful party in many usually red states.

I despise the republican party SO MUCH now I really hope against hope they give Trump the nomination. If they did I would party so hardy I would possibly inadvertently kill myself. But that is OK. It is a pipe dream of mine. I doubt he will be the nominee after all the ads come out - mainly paid for by the Koch brothers - that Trump's first wife said he physically abused her - in a SWORN DEPOSITION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY - that he has declared bankruptcy something like four or five times, that he is a lifelong Democrat right up until VERY recently - i.e., he pro-legal abortion, pro-gun laws, not anti-gay - not to mention he publically said very nice things all the time about Hillary until very recently, that Bill and Hillary attended his last wedding (he's been married three times), and that he is not particularly religious at all, in fact, he takes a flippant attitude toward the idea of taking god into serious consideration on important matters (see above).

So I am going to assume my dream will not come true. Nevertheless I will continue to dream the impossible dream. Hey, it don't cost nothing.

All of that, especially "I don’t bring God into that picture. I don't." plus also the "drink my little wine" and "have my little cracker".

Presbyterian.

The Donald, in pissing off all pious Catholics and all pious evangelicals

On the contrary, the Donald got his Catholic theology correct here. Catholics believe that presbyterian communion is indeed little more than a little wine and a little cracker! :)

Overall, however, yes, he's a monster. I'm not really inclined to bring his religious opinions into the matter. I don't get the sense he's a major religious hypocrite. He doesn't use his religion much—not surprising as he clearly doesn't get much from it or understand it.

No, I think his being a monster is a simpler matter—being a racist asshole, for example, but hardly restricted to that.

Four bankruptcies ....... I guess we all know who gets the raw end of the deal in a bankruptcy. So he doesn't really care much for the little guy. All little guys on the panel this morning. One of them actually said that Trump would restore some class to this country. Gave me a raging headache.

I do not hate Republican's I live with a Republican. I often do not understand Republicans and I am always gob smacked by the amount of hypocrisy it takes to stand firm on a Republican platform. What applies to the self does not necessarily apply to the whole. I've heard it time and time again. But, Republican's are good at making money....creating businesses and building empires. They have the vision it takes to make this possible. But, to have a healthy society there needs to be a balance and the current Republican Party is not about any type of balance or compromise. The most offensive candidate is polling on top.

My question wasn't really about the candidates so much as the base.....how does a base who has consistently voted for family values and Christian principles, poll out with someone like Donald Trump on top. How does this square with who they claim to be ? Or do they just go with the "Christian principle" thing when it is attached to a promise not to raise taxes ?

I have asked this question close to home.....but have never gotten a satisfying answer. Most often it comes down to "things should be the way they have always been and then nothing would cost so much" (meaning education, healthcare, social security any social program.....never a whisper about what the war in the Middle East has cost this nation)

I am really suspect of anyone who thinks that Donald Trump has class.

I can see the lawn signs:

TRUMP
FOR PRESIDENT
FOUR BANKRUPTCIES!

> 7

Joke break - Jon Stewart's take on the Donald - watch to the end as he eventually does come back to the topic of the Donald's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N2tugaSMbU

>5 faceinbook: how does a base who has consistently voted for family values and Christian principles, poll out with someone like Donald Trump on top.

Because the Republican party is complex; Five Thirty-Eight breaks it down to five groups, Moderate, Establishment, Conservative Christian, Libertarian and Tea Party, and while there is some overlap between Conservative Christian and Tea Party, they put Trump pretty far away from that overlap. And he's on top only because of the number of candidates and winner-takes-all; 20% might pick him for president right now, but in a one-on-one match against probably literally any other candidate in the field, he would lose.

"Is the Don successful at marriage ?.....NO
At family life ?......NO
Respecting women and minorities ? .......NO
Respecting anyone for that matter ? (let us not forget that The Don's various businesses have filed for bankruptcy four times....this hurts the little guy. Keeps the Don on top but fleeces anyone he may own money).....NOPE
Manners and/or respect ?........NO"

Getting in Dems' craw ?..... Yep (see : this thread, everywhere else on the Internet)
He's the highest-quality troll the USA have had in a long time. I'd lie if I said I am entirely not jealous.

HE isn't getting in Dem's craw (at least not mine) The individuals who would think he would make a good President and their reasoning behind such a decision is disturbing to the craw. How does one fix STUPID and their seems to be quite a bit of it about.

I don't think Trump hits any of the five ideological groups— Moderate, Establishment, Conservative Christian, Libertarian or Tea Party. Certainly leaders in all those groups would be against him. His appeal is along a different axis. He appeals to populists who like "straight talk" and "angry talk" against all enemies—internal to the party, cultural opponents, Mexicans, etc.

"HE isn't getting in Dem's craw (at least not mine) The individuals who would think he would make a good President and their reasoning behind such a decision is disturbing to the craw."

Campaigning is a team effort.

According to Washington Post, Trump appeals to less-educated Americans, who perceive their jobs going to immigrants and overseas workers (via trade agreements):

"... In regions such as the Midwest and South, where globalization and American trade deals have arguably ravaged industries that once provided family-sustaining wages for some of these same sets of workers, the competition for even these often low-wage jobs is intense. Adding to the situation, when the nation's most recent immigration surge -- much of it illegal -- began in the 1990s (and ended around 2007, according to Pew Research Center data), many immigrant workers found jobs in the Midwest and South. These are areas of the country that had not seen large influxes of immigration for more than 100 years. Perhaps an ongoing, if smaller, trickle of immigrants to the Northeast has something to do with why attitudes about immigration seem far different there than in other parts of the country. None of that is to say that this read on immigration and immigrant labor is totally accurate, logical or properly channeled. Labor unions, whose members tend to vote for Democrats, now champion immigration reforms that would extend some some sort of legal status to the nation's estimated 11.3 million undocumented immigrants."

"Their thinking: This will relieve some of the downward pressure on wages and level the playing field between immigrant and native-born workers. Big business interests and many economists insist that immigrant workers largely fill roles that American workers don't want or are no longer practical and, in this sense, help to fuel opportunity and even some pressure for American workers to gain more skills, education and training."

"Those are two ways to view things. The Trump way is another."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/donald-trumps-surge-is-...

Trump is vulnerable on the jobs-for-Americans front, though:

"... According to a Reuters analysis of Labor Department data, a number of Trump's companies have applied for hundreds of temporary visas for foreign workers since 2000. Nine companies, which Trump has majority stakes in, have tried to bring in at least 1,100 foreign employees to work as cooks, wait staff, vineyard hands and other miscellaneous laborers under a short-term work visa program..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-companies-foreign-workers-report/

At least next week's Republican debate won't be a snoozer!

"...Figuring out how to handle Trump is a constant subject among campaign aides, especially with regard to his demeanor. Will he be combative and mostly disregard the rules and moderators, or will he go from being “P.T. Barnum to Reaganesque,” as one campaign adviser wondered..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-presence-in-first-gop-debate-makes...

Fox News prepared the way for Mr Trump by foisting professional bloviators like O’Reilly and Hannity on the public for years. He’s the spawn of Murdoch even if old Rupe refuses to recognize his paternity.

http://www.amazon.com/Hasbro-Trump-Game-TRUMP-the/dp/B0002CEXOU

Hurry! There's only one left.

Name recognition and circuses have ever been the way to appeal to the base (and I mean the other usage, too). Recall that since Nixon and the Republican Party established "The Southern Strategy," it has never NOT been used by their aspirants and candidates for president. In short, by this strategy, the Republican Party has codified racism in its core values, in what it stands for. By now, we should call it by it's true name -- the Republican Strategy.

Donald Trump has gladly latched onto the most successful and long-lived Republican Strategy to promote himself to the most forceful element in his party -- the racists. They hid behind the skirts of the Tea Party's so-called concern over taxes but the disguise has slipped. The Tea Party is really the resurgence of the John Birch Society.

Recall upon Obama's election how some Tea Partiers were caught spitting on a black Congressman on the Capitol steps and the racist positions taken by McConnell to make Obama a one-term president by destroying the ability of the country to govern itself with a declared policy of "just say no" to all of Obama's proposals. There can be no political reason other than racism since no political rationale was put forward by McConnell or Boehner, or other so-called Republican leadership to defend their total obstructionism. Recall the behavior of Republican congressman who interrupted the president in the State of the Union address to shout at him, "You lie." All the birthers who deny facts and promote the lie that Obama is a native of Kenya are again attempting to reinforce the color of his skin. Even the right-wing cartoonists depicting the POTUS as a monkey are racists.

The Donald's blurts about immigrants are racial, not economic and have nothing to do with troubled law enforcement; his disrespect is his expression of white male privilege asserting itself; his persistent embrace of birtherism is confirmation of his racism.

Don't kid yourselves. Trump IS the Republican Party. There is no logical explanation other than him being the embodiment of how Republicans see themselves -- or wish to see themselves -- as we see by his lead in the polls. The only logical explanation of the electorate is that they vote based on their emotions. Trump's doing just fine because he appeals to those emotions: Offended white (largely male) privilege having to "take orders" from a black executive. What better way to erase the "shame" of feeling inferior than to nominate a rich white business executive who will punish minorities of all kinds for having been uppity and not knowing their place?

>16 Limelite: "Even the right-wing cartoonists depicting the POTUS as a monkey are racists."



"Trump IS the Republican Party."

The NBC/WSJ poll yesterday had Trump only being the choice of 19% of himself.

> 17 Yes, but in the case of George Bush, Jr. the implication is not racist. It is merely accurate.

(I.e., comparing Obama's many performances in interviews and q. and a. press conferences to the many ones of George Bush, Jr. it is obvious that there is a wide gap in intelligence, with Obama scoring well, in contradistinction to Bush, who both in speech and in body language resembles a shaved jabbering chimp in a suit, or about the same intellectual level as your average teabagger, only better dresssed.

>17 cpg: That image is the work of Steve Bell, a cartoonist for The Guardian (UK newspaper). http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2009/jan/15/steve-bell-george-bush

>19 theoria: " That image is the work of Steve Bell, a cartoonist for The Guardian (UK newspaper)."

True. If you don't like Steve Bell, we don't have to look very far for alternatives:

>20 cpg:

Intelligence can be measured by one's capability to make accurate distinctions. No doubt, you know and haven't forgotten the long association of "monkey" as a pejorative racist euphemism for black person. That W was stupid (as these cartoons affirm) has nothing to do with race and everything to do with his inability to make necessary distinctions that most 12 year-olds are capable of. Making him an unfit president in that regard. It is not even arguable that POTUS outshines W in any measure of intelligence.

Every cartoon you've posted about Bush refers to his stupidity not his race. That portrayal doesn't alter the fact that right wing cartoons are examples of racial bigotry. It would be impossible for them to imply Obama is as stupid as W using the same image because it's laughable -- and we'd all be laughing at the stupid cartoonist who tried.

Why not spend your time surfing the net for those right wing racist cartoons? Look at them. Eventually you should be able to make the distinction.

>17 cpg: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/04/27/135771740/portraying-obama...

It turns out after several hundred years of depicting black people as lessers by depicting them as apes and monkeys, any picture of a black person as an ape or money is considered racist. Same way showing Bush feasting on the blood of a child might be in poor taste, but showing a Jewish president doing the same thing would be racist.

>19 theoria: Great retrospective. Thanks.

I don't think Laura Bush was ever portrayed as simian. Michelle Obama, however...

>24 margd:
No Laura Bush was pretty much a "Stepford Wife"............Though IMO I think she may also be a saint. She put up with GW for long enough to qualify.