Exclusive: RNC member urges party to rally against Trump

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Flagged and starred simply love to hear this news. Looks more and more like GOP will give this presidency to Bernie!.

Reality check. Bernie is not going to win. If he gets the nomination he will crash and 'bern' during real debates with real opponents who will reveal him for the addle-brained 60's utopian socialist he really is.

Seriously, he's a train wreck.

Here's my fear: Trump's success will cause the establishment to do something drastic like 'get rid of him'. Let's hope there's not a plane crash or a fatal heart attack in Trump's near future!


ETA: Remember the movie Wag The Dog? The White House enlists the aid of a movie producer to create a fake war in order to take the heat off the president's girl scouts scandal. It was to be done secretly but the producer was so proud of his accomplishment he wanted to tell the world what he did. They 'quietly' took care of him.

I've always felt Trump was a plant to distract the voters from the other candidates but now even he's surprised at his popularity and is now running as a real candidate. The establishment might feel like they need to 'quietly' take care of him.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I am sorry, but that statement is so absurd I can barely contain myself. I am not sure you aware what "reality" is.

What "real" opponents? Trump? Carson? Cruz? Bush?
I'll kindly ask you not to make me laugh.
Well, Cruz might stand a chance. I have heard he is extremely smart, though I have also seen nothing to indicate such a fact.

A train wreck does not lead one of the most successful grass-roots movements in history.
A train wreck does not claw itself up from "not even a contender" to "serious threat" within several months.
This is the face of a train wreck.

And what is wrong, pray tell, with being Utopian? Utopia is flawless. Perfection. It is a goal quite worthy of being chased.
Do you think he's "just" an idealist?
What happens when you reach for the goal of 100%?
You'll probably get 50%.
What happens when you reach for the "realistic" goal of 50%?
You'll probably get 25%.

a reply to: texasgirl

I would find that quite interesting. It would indicate that either there is a schism within TPTB and they are divided, Trump is ot considered wealthy or powerful enough to be included in their ranks, or they truly do control things such as alien technology, things beyond the ken of mortal men.
Not "Wealth."
"Power."

Oh, and death is usually a tragedy. Though the man himself irritates me, I'm not hoping he dies in such a manner. I would simply find it a curious matter.

Regardless, if anyone is due for a plane crash or sudden suicidal thoughts, it is likely Sanders.

originally posted by: Informer1958
My question is for ATS is what do you all believe will happen if Trump decides to run as a third party?

The Democrats will win.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If Hillary is somehow nominated, I would not be so sure. I would not be surprised if a fair portion of Sander's supporters (such as myself) would adopt the "let it burn" attitude.
If Sanders is on the ticket, they will win regardless of what Trump does.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Doesn't matter. If Trump goes independent, the Democrats will win.

Also, I'd never vote for Trump in a million years. He represents everything that is wrong with the election process.

Exclusive: RNC member urges party to rally against Trump

It's always been my theory that the planned ballot for November, 2016, was going to be Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Since the end of the cold war, we've seen a Bush, a two-episode Clinton, then a two episode Bush... only gapped by a guy named Obama who was like manna from heaven for those behind the curtains.

Next up? Another Bush or another Clinton.
The perfection of the plan was that both are under the same control panel and though they would take slightly differing directions on certain matters, the end point would be the same.
The imperfections rolled in with Jeb being about as boringly useless as a lawn-mower in a Siberian winter and Hillary's massive misuse of communicative devices during critical moments as Secretary of State... and then perhaps, even offering some official lies.

The Bilderbergs/NWO/Globalists (whatever/whoever they are) must have pooped their britches because... they had it all so perfectly planned out. How could they NOT win? They had the perfect candidates for both parties.

Well, then came Sanders and Trump... and there goes the plan down the commode into the septic tank of history.

What's next?
Who in the heck knows.

(Bar opens at 4pm ET - Happy Hour 'til 10...)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Doesn't matter. If Trump goes independent, the Democrats will win.

Also, I'd never vote for Trump in a million years. He represents everything that is wrong with the election process.

What do you mean 'represents eveything that is wrong with the election process'. Do you really mean that or are yu just being sensational?

a reply to: UKTruth

I certainly do mean it. Trump is a sheep in wolves clothing and represents what a bunch of low information voters amassed under one supporter will do because it "sounds" good.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I certainly do mean it. Trump is a sheep in wolves clothing and represents what a bunch of low information voters amassed under one supporter will do because it "sounds" good.

Well then you have lost perspective. Firstly there are many Trump supporters who are not 'low information' as you well know. Secondly, to suggest that Trump represents everything wrong with the voting system is extremist to say the least.

What problems exist with the voting system and how does Trump represent them?

a reply to: UKTruth

Meh. It's probably a bit hyperbolic, but I stand by my statement. I also don't rescind my point about Trump supporters being low information voters. Because if they were actually informed, they'd know that his policy proposals are impossible.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Informer1958

Now I want to vote for him...when the establishment is this pissy, I'm motivated to do the opposite to their desire.

exactly

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I certainly do mean it. Trump is a sheep in wolves clothing and represents what a bunch of low information voters amassed under one supporter will do because it "sounds" good.

I have to kindly disagree.

What We The People like about Trump is he is not controlled, or bought and paid for by the Global elite.

Bernie Sanders is the other Presidential candid that is not bought and paid for either and I really believe he will beat Hillary.

Americans are sick and tired of the elite getting all the attention and getting all their agendas fulfilled, and We The People are only getting the shaft.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Reality check. Bernie is not going to win.

Agreed he wont win, but not for your reasoning below. He will not win because the DNC will never endorse him.

If he gets the nomination he will crash and 'bern' during real debates with real opponents who will reveal him for the addle-brained 60's utopian socialist he really is.

Plus who do reckon from the GOP side that could be considered a real opponent? Trump,Rubio,Cruz, LOL? Carson or Paul will never get endorsed by the GOP even despite being the best they got. Simply because its not about the Democrats winning or the Republicans winning , its about getting the appropriate Oligopoly controlled candidate elected. Thats the only job of the DNC and the RNC.

The GOP campaign mantra again will be to "vote for the lesser evil" or in the case that individual republicans continue pushing for Trump they will turn it into "vote for the known evil" for rubio or cruz.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Meh. It's probably a bit hyperbolic, but I stand by my statement. I also don't rescind my point about Trump supporters being low information voters. Because if they were actually informed, they'd know that his policy proposals are impossible.

There's two problems with correlating 'low information' voters with Trump.

Firstly, Trump actually doesn't give as much detail on his policies than, say Hillary Clinton, so it might be true to say that voters dont have enough information about Trump, but not true to say they are 'low information' . I have seen you talk about that term before and you seemed to be relating it to low intelligence. (Note: comparison of detail taken from easily accessible candidate websites - worth pointing out that both sites are getting about equal traffic)

Secondly, many Trump supporters are turning to him because they ARE informed about Clinton's policies and Sanders policies and are rejecting them.

The broad brush statements trying to paint Trump as the embodiment of evil and all his supporters being somehow dumb comes across as, how can i say this, uninformed and extremist.

a reply to: UKTruth

Literally all of Trumps' policy proposals are impossible if you were to apply a small bit of critical thinking to them, plus voting for someone because you are rejecting someone else doesn't make you informed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Literally all of Trumps' policy proposals are impossible if you were to apply a small bit of critical thinking to them, plus voting for someone because you are rejecting someone else doesn't make you informed.

No one has voted yet.

You missed the point - if you read literally everything there is on the candidates policies then you STILL wouldn't be totally clear on the detail of Trumps proposals and would have more information on Clintons proposals. I am sure you are not advocating that the 'informed' voter should only support the person who provides the most details. That would be silly.

Donald Trump on 2nd Amendment:
www.donaldjtrump.com...

Can you explain to me what small piece of critical thinking makes what he is suggesting here impossible?

a reply to: UKTruth

Because being an informed voter would tell you that the "laws on the books" are doing this to the gun violence statistics:

Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s

So the laws on the books are working. If you want to adhere to those laws, fine, but accept that the circumstances surrounding gun violence that are an issue today will remain an issue. But don't pretend like people aren't enforcing gun laws or they aren't working.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Because being an informed voter would tell you that the "laws on the books" are doing this to the gun violence statistics:

Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s

So the laws on the books are working. If you want to adhere to those laws, fine, but accept that the circumstances surrounding gun violence that are an issue today will remain an issue. But don't pretend like people aren't enforcing gun laws or they aren't working.

You said 'all his proposals were impossible' [SIC]. I did not ask if you agreed with them.

He says in summary:

Enforce the current laws (he does also explain in the link he would like to reintroduce previous laws on sentencing that have been removed)
Fix the broken mental health system
Improve background checks
Ensure military personal can carry guns within their military facility
Implement the national right to carry via permits
Remove gun and magazine bans

What is impossible with the above? - and again this is not about policy agreement.