This is exactly what is wrong with the GOP....(hopelessly outdated goals)

This article from CNN really illustrates it (the hopeless goals of "conservatives"):

www.cnn.com...

In closing, the (obviously conservative) author states:

Trump does not care about the things that regular conservatives have dedicated their lives to fighting for: controls on abortion, protection of marriage, reform of the healthcare market.

There's a reason for this.

Controls on abortion? Already decided by the public AND the Supreme Court. It is a DEAD issue. Any new votes on it are ONLY going to be even MORE skewed to the left, so this is beating a dead horse.

Protection of marriage? By this, I'm assuming the author means between a man and a woman. Again, already decided by the public AND the Supreme Court. Also again, a DEAD issue, and one where new votes would only skew MORE to the left.

and the last one:

Reform of the healthcare market? This is just plain WRONG. Trump is the only candidate pushing to completely scrap and rebuild the disaster known as ObamaCare. He's the only one talking about how it was designed BY and FOR insurance companies, for example.

Whether you like him or not, Trump obviously has the support (so far) of the majority of Republican voters as evidenced in the Primaries. For the GOP to deliberately set about to sabotage him, is just unbelievable to me. I mean, I understand he's anti-establishment, so they aren't happy about it, but they might as well just hand the Presidency to Hillary at this point.

Somehow, the GOP either honestly believes Cruz or Rubio could pose a challenge to Hillary, or they simply don't care if they don't have a shot at the Presidency, so they'll do it just to "save" the other ticket Republicans. I mean, these are the ONLY possibilities I can see to explain it.

But it won't work.

If Trump has the majority support, but the GOP pulls something, I'll be happy to help with the self-destruct...not only will I still vote for Trump if he runs independent, but I'll also be sure to vote AGAINST any Republican on the ballot they tried to "save" in such a way. I doubt I'm alone in this.

a reply to: Gazrok

they simply don't care if they don't have a shot at the Presidency

That's the point. I think a lot of people are waking up to what a lot of others have known for years. The "us vs them" has never been, in recent history, about Democrat politicians vs Republican politicians. Sure, they all get out there and toss harsh language at each other, but at the end of they day they are all on the same side. The "us vs them" is the Average Joes vs The Political-Corporate-Military-Industrial class.

In this case, the life-long Republican politicians care about maintaining their relationships with large donors far more than they do the average American.

Donors donate ---> "their" candidate wins --> laws/regulations go in the favor of donors

The politician and the donors make mad money, often at the expense of the public.
THIS is what the Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) care about. They want to preserve THIS. THIS is how they go from have a moderate bank account when they are elected to becoming multi-millionaires within a few years.

a reply to: Gazrok

You could be right but I have a different read on this whole charade. If you look at Trumps past history; he isn't anti establishment. He is intimately connected to the establishment. His role is a continuation of his Reality show...to what ends? Time will tell! To me his phony anti establishment rants seem contrived and designed for shock value to entertain his devotees. He is a marketing genius; but what is he selling? Pie in the sky dreams of a new politics or BS disguised as "Hope and Change" that we know all to well.

But you are correct...The GOP is an obsolete group of fools and thankfully they are destroying themselves in a vain attempt to remain relevant. Good riddance....they smell of used "Depends" and "Listerine"...

Still the best damn show we have had in a long time.

I'll give you that.

But, I think it's all about examining Trump's goal in this.

I personally think he wants to establish a legacy. It's one thing money can't buy, and for a guy who is winning at life, you need another challenge. I think this has always been his white whale.

Because of this, I think he'll do good, in spite of himself. He simply has to. His ego will allow nothing less.

The problem is Trump does not have a majority of support among the GOP, the majority has divided its votes among 3 other people. This is an important detail As candidates have dropped out Trumps level of support has remained the same while the other have seen bumps. So when 60 to 70% of your party has been alienated by the possible winner of its primary in a year where tons of Congressional, state and local seats are up for grabs things look real bad for the party. To make them worse is Trump polls at some the worst levels ever seen by a GOP candidate among Independent and DNC voters. That makes this election for the GOP a looming disaster with Trump at its head. It would get trounced with Cruz as well but, it would at least get more of its own party out and same some seats. The GOP sees Trump as ending the GOP as a national political party for at least 4 years. The GOP is going to do whatever it can to remove Trump because failure to do so will hand 4 years of total dominance to the DNC. The only plus side they see is Trump losing so badly he become irrelevant to party after. And that is not much of a plus side.

a reply to: MrSpad

An interesting examination, and very possible.

Seems most so far, are of the idea the GOP is "to hell with the Presidency, we just want to get our Congressional seats elected" mentality here. Like I said, the other possibility is that they are deluded into thinking Cruz or Rubio would have a shot at it...so this makes sense.

Though if others take my approach towards those other candidates, they may just cut off their nose, to spite their face.

a reply to: MrSpad

Which is why I think Trump is a Trojan house sent into the GOP by the clintons so it self destructs.

I think Trump is a pragmatist. He is a moderate leaning slightly right.

He is like many conservatives, particularly those who live in urban areas like me. I could give a rat's ass about the social issues. I have my opinions on them, but recognize they are non-starter issues.

The religious proselytizing and abortion are non-starters for me. Gay marriage? Who cares? That wing of the party is why the Republicans often struggle.

The GOP brass hates Trump, but without Trump in the race they'd have absolutely no shot versus Bernie or Hillary.

a reply to: MrSpad

Why are hundreds of thousands of republican voters falling for it? Not as smart as you?

I know Hillary is crooked as a dog's hind legs, but she won't destroy the democrat party.

a reply to: Gazrok

Trump isn't anti-establishment. Does this look "anti-establishment" to you?



Trump is the most openly authoritarian of all of the candidates and his supporters are eating it up. His crowds are now full of would-be brownshirts assaulting protesters and heckling the media. He is met with wild applause when he says that he's going to "open up libel laws" so that "we" can sue for "negative" articles and get "a lot of money." He's promising to expand domestic surveillance but that's okay with his supporters as long as he's targeting somebody else's religion and supporting having those people register their religion with the State. He's promising to build a wall and impose tariffs to pay for it — which of course a president doesn't have authority to do.

As for ObamaCare, what has he really said that is in stark contrast to other candidates? All of the GOP candidates are saying "repeal and replace" and the only real difference is Trump says that "everybody's got to be covered." Though he's said "this doesn't mean single payer" he's talking about universal health care (coverage) so what's that mean really? Essentially the only ways to accomplish this are single payer, a public option or further subsidization (RomneyCare/ObamaCare+). There's no escaping that. Sanders is advocating for universal health care too (MediCare for all).

Trump isn't anti-establishment in any general sense, he's against the greater part of the current media, political and academic consensus which has prevailed in America and Western Europe for the past seventy years, he's a Nationalist.

It's estimated by some that he has the support of around 30% of those within the Military and Intelligence echelons and thus represents the interests of those tired of America being the puppet of Israeli foreign policy, given that's also the key funding source behind both major political parties little wonder they're united in anyone but Trump, he threatens their highly lucrative acts of treason and basis for power and influence, the people Trump represents don't just want to see the likes of Clinton and Bush defeated at the ballot box, they want them behind bars.

It's unlikely to succeed because those same groups even apart from their almost total media dominance and control over public opinion, were the strains are showing, can also bring about economic collapse and orchestrate civil unrest to the extent of making any government ineffective if they were no longer getting their own way, which is to say they would rather cause total collapse rather than allow power to change hands.

a reply to: Sigrun

Yes, I'm sure Trump wants to lock up all of his wedding guests to whom he's donated money.

a reply to: Gazrok

If Trump has the majority support, but the GOP pulls something, I'll be happy to help with the self-destruct...not only will I still vote for Trump if he runs independent, but I'll also be sure to vote AGAINST any Republican on the ballot they tried to "save" in such a way. I doubt I'm alone in this.

I don't agree with your voting choices, but I agree with your logic. If Republicans try to dismiss the voting public they should explode. And they will. I like Trump's approach - destroy the beast. Good for you!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Gazrok

Trump isn't anti-establishment. Does this look "anti-establishment" to you?

Trump is the most openly authoritarian of all of the candidates and his supporters are eating it up. His crowds are now full of would-be brownshirts assaulting protesters and heckling the media. He is met with wild applause when he says that he's going to "open up libel laws" so that "we" can sue for "negative" articles and get "a lot of money." He's promising to expand domestic surveillance but that's okay with his supporters as long as he's targeting somebody else's religion and supporting having those people register their religion with the State. He's promising to build a wall and impose tariffs to pay for it — which of course a president doesn't have authority to do.

As for ObamaCare, what has he really said that is in stark contrast to other candidates? All of the GOP candidates are saying "repeal and replace" and the only real difference is Trump says that "everybody's got to be covered." Though he's said "this doesn't mean single payer" he's talking about universal health care (coverage) so what's that mean really? Essentially the only ways to accomplish this are single payer, a public option or further subsidization (RomneyCare/ObamaCare+). There's no escaping that. Sanders is advocating for universal health care too (MediCare for all).

Trump is a prominent business man. So getting your photo taken with other prominent people makes you part of the establishment? I'm a nobody, but I've been photographed making small talk with a billionaire. I guess that makes me part of the establishment?

Sorry, you are reaching.

a reply to: Gazrok

Controls on abortion? Already decided by the public AND the Supreme Court. It is a DEAD issue.
...

Protection of marriage? By this, I'm assuming the author means between a man and a woman. Again, already decided by the public AND the Supreme Court. Also again, a DEAD issue,
...

In both instances, public opinion has never solidified on a national scale. This is why they fell upon the SCotUS to begin with.

Now, if the states had the right to form their own laws by vote/referendum... some would and some would not. This would be the perfect outcome because there could be no gripes. But we just don't do that... the ability of states to form their own laws has long since been washed away.

Oh... btw, this has nothing to do with the old 'state's rights' argument. This comes down to the function and ability of state governments and populations to make their own laws on subjects NOT covered by the US Constitution.

Racial segregation was always unconstitutional... but of those two above?

Again, the Constitution never gets close to them, so... it was a choice; either the federal government grabbed it up as theirs or the individual states would create a nation where crossing a state line could remedy whatever one sought.

Wouldn't that be just too doggone elegant for a nation that so lovingly divides itself with politics?

Have a nice day

...

a reply to: theantediluvian

I didn't say he did, i suggested those backing him behind the scenes would, it's simply the case that given Trumps connections to the establishment and celebrity status he makes for an engaging frontman to throw into the mix, all people such as yourself are seeing is Trump, a desired effect, but that's just the tip of a pretty mean iceberg you're sailing toward

God I can't wait this to be over !!! Pick someone already

Who ever it is we deal with it then

a reply to: Edumakated

Trump is a prominent business man. So getting your photo taken with other prominent people makes you part of the establishment? I'm a nobody, but I've been photographed making small talk with a billionaire. I guess that makes me part of the establishment?

Sorry, you are reaching.

I think you need to do some research in Trumps past connections, campaign contributions and mob affiliations. His establishment ties go a little deeper than photo ops.

Here, I'll do the research for you....
www.washingtonpost.com...

Does this look anti establishment to you? He's working for the Clintons! He hasn't "gone rogue"....

The naivete of his devotees is truly astonishing.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Edumakated

Trump is a prominent business man. So getting your photo taken with other prominent people makes you part of the establishment? I'm a nobody, but I've been photographed making small talk with a billionaire. I guess that makes me part of the establishment?

Sorry, you are reaching.

I think you need to do some research in Trumps past connections, campaign contributions and mob affiliations. His establishment ties go a little deeper than photo ops.

Here, I'll do the research for you....
www.washingtonpost.com...

Does this look anti establishment to you? He's working for the Clintons! He hasn't "gone rogue"....

The naivete of his devotees is truly astonishing.

All your "research" did was show that Trump has spread his money around to both Republicans and Democrats. As a business person, this is a wise thing to do. Here in Chicago, where he has one of his most prominent buildings, of course he was going to give money to Rahm. Republicans might as well be Bigfoot in Chicago. We don't exist.

Mob ties? You mean like the Teamster's Union? You cannot do business in NJ and NY, particularly in construction, without some how touching a mobster whether intentionally or not. I used to do consulting work for a major major F500 company - as in one of the most recognizable brands. I was looking at some "expenses" in NJ. Long story short, I was told not to dig too deep "cough, cough" with the implication being the contracts had some mob connection.

Sometimes in business you have to make compromises. Your guy is not always going to be in charge. As such, you still have to learn to play nice with the politicians who are in charge as they have the power to regulate you out of business. Businesses know this and this is why they lobby so much.