• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neither George W nor George HW Bush will endorse Donald Trump

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'Non-endorsements come as Trump becomes presumptive nominee and many have tried to come to terms with fact that he will be party’s standard-bearer'

'Neither George HW nor George W Bush, the only two living former Republican presidents of the United States, will endorse Donald Trump.

In statements released to the Guardian on Wednesday evening, spokesmen for both former presidents said they would be sitting out the 2016 election. Freddy Ford, a spokesman for George W Bush, told the Guardian: “President George W Bush does not plan to participate in or comment on the presidential campaign.”

The statement by the 43rd president was echoed in one released by his father. Jim McGrath, a spokesman for George HW Bush, told the Guardian: “At age 91, President Bush is retired from politics. He naturally did a few things to help Jeb, but those were the ‘exceptions that proved the rule’.”'

Neither George W nor George HW Bush will endorse Donald Trump | US news | The Guardian


Thoughts?
 
No ta complete shock - given Jeb Bush.

But although I don't have a ton of respect for GWB (though he seems a decent sort of person). I did have a fair amount of respect for his pop as POTUS...especially his foreign policy record.

Though I doubt Trump or his supporters will care.

But the list just keeps getting longer and longer.
 
Something something establishment something.
 
Romney will also not be attending the convention, and I think not endorsing.
 
Thoughts?

Makes sense, both Bush 41 and Bush 43 were establishment Republicans for the most part. It would be easy to argue that both were guided by party and both effectively took the typical paths to the nomination by appealing to the usual power players and wealth collections that support the party.

Trump on the other hand... entirely unorthodox approach to campaigning, very unpredictable, has flip-flopped on dozens of issues over his entire life (not just campaign life,) and is about as anti-establishment as they come.

All the rules are out the window on the Republican side of the 2016 campaign, I would not be surprised to see Trump run against Hillary with little to no Republican support including active members of Congress who might be fighting for their own seat headed into the next 115th Congress.

The question becomes, does Hillary campaign against Trump using these things against him? Odds are no.
 
'Non-endorsements come as Trump becomes presumptive nominee and many have tried to come to terms with fact that he will be party’s standard-bearer'

'Neither George HW nor George W Bush, the only two living former Republican presidents of the United States, will endorse Donald Trump.

In statements released to the Guardian on Wednesday evening, spokesmen for both former presidents said they would be sitting out the 2016 election. Freddy Ford, a spokesman for George W Bush, told the Guardian: “President George W Bush does not plan to participate in or comment on the presidential campaign.”

The statement by the 43rd president was echoed in one released by his father. Jim McGrath, a spokesman for George HW Bush, told the Guardian: “At age 91, President Bush is retired from politics. He naturally did a few things to help Jeb, but those were the ‘exceptions that proved the rule’.”'

Neither George W nor George HW Bush will endorse Donald Trump | US news | The Guardian


Thoughts?
Them along with a long list of other Republican Leaders and Voters. Make no mistake there are more than a few Repubs that will Not be supporting Trump and they will not be forgiving of his actions in this election, he has ensured that the Dems will win the Whitehouse and made a laughing stock of the GOP. I almost feel sorry for them but they made their bed and now they are stuck with the results.
 
Romney will also not be attending the convention, and I think not endorsing.

Heh, yeah, saw that news item. First thought: he can stay home with his loser's stench.
 
Them along with a long list of other Republican Leaders and Voters. Make no mistake there are more than a few Repubs that will Not be supporting Trump and they will not be forgiving of his actions in this election, he has ensured that the Dems will win the Whitehouse and made a laughing stock of the GOP. I almost feel sorry for them but they made their bed and now they are stuck with the results.

And the majority of republicans voters who have their big boy pants will have a handy list of those who will have no political future with them.

Welcome to obscurity.
 
And the majority of republicans voters who have their big boy pants will have a handy list of those who will have no political future with them.

Welcome to obscurity.

I tend to agree. at least, when asked about endorsing Trump, say "I want to see more", or "I'm holding back for now." but to state flatly "no endorsement. period." half a year before the election? no, that's not going to help anyone except the enemies of conservatism.
 
Heh, yeah, saw that news item. First thought: he can stay home with his loser's stench.
:) see you in November.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
'Non-endorsements come as Trump becomes presumptive nominee and many have tried to come to terms with fact that he will be party’s standard-bearer'

'Neither George HW nor George W Bush, the only two living former Republican presidents of the United States, will endorse Donald Trump.

In statements released to the Guardian on Wednesday evening, spokesmen for both former presidents said they would be sitting out the 2016 election. Freddy Ford, a spokesman for George W Bush, told the Guardian: “President George W Bush does not plan to participate in or comment on the presidential campaign.”

The statement by the 43rd president was echoed in one released by his father. Jim McGrath, a spokesman for George HW Bush, told the Guardian: “At age 91, President Bush is retired from politics. He naturally did a few things to help Jeb, but those were the ‘exceptions that proved the rule’.”'

Neither George W nor George HW Bush will endorse Donald Trump | US news | The Guardian


Thoughts?

Meh, mostly unsurprising.

Though i do take issue with the expression that exceptions prove rules- it seems to me that they would serve to disprove them.
 
I tend to agree. at least, when asked about endorsing Trump, say "I want to see more", or "I'm holding back for now." but to state flatly "no endorsement. period." half a year before the election? no, that's not going to help anyone except the enemies of conservatism.

You are a little late. With Trump's nomination, the enemies of conservatism have already won.
 
Good!! We are voting against their kind anyway..
 
Makes sense, both Bush 41 and Bush 43 were establishment Republicans for the most part. It would be easy to argue that both were guided by party and both effectively took the typical paths to the nomination by appealing to the usual power players and wealth collections that support the party.

Trump on the other hand... entirely unorthodox approach to campaigning, very unpredictable, has flip-flopped on dozens of issues over his entire life (not just campaign life,) and is about as anti-establishment as they come.

All the rules are out the window on the Republican side of the 2016 campaign, I would not be surprised to see Trump run against Hillary with little to no Republican support including active members of Congress who might be fighting for their own seat headed into the next 115th Congress.

The question becomes, does Hillary campaign against Trump using these things against him? Odds are no.

That's an interesting question about how Hillary campaigns against Trump.

I think the worst thing she can do is attack his being outside the box. And it may be dangerous to attack his flip flops when he was a democrat. I mean bringing up that he was a former democrat might actually swing some anti Hillary democrats and independents solidly in his camp.

I think she needs to attack his outlandish positions. Attack his "I'll just take the oil" type of statements. Attack his "they are murders and rapists and some of them are probably good people"... attack "a woman that has an abortion should have some punishment" type of stuff.

The important thing is to be ready to swing away every time he makes a gaff. The dems need to look into his history of bankruptcies, put that out. the Trump University scandal stuff.

In debates... she needs to be smarter and arrogant to him. She MUST be very careful to engage him in debate where she is not verbally sparing with him like a child. Make him appear the petulant childish one. and if she can come off smarter and uncowed by his actions.. I think he very well could come unglued. he is convinced of his natural superiority, and he certainly has a view of woman as inferior and I think if a woman can challenge his ego.. he may react very badly.
 
I think the worst thing she can do is attack his being outside the box.

Like exactly how she has tried attacking him so far..

I think she needs to attack his outlandish positions. Attack his
1."I'll just take the oil" type of statements. Attack his
2."they are murders and rapists and some of them are probably good people"... attack
3. "a woman that has an abortion should have some punishment" type of stuff.

Yeah use lies against him..

1. Take oil from ISIS.. Why not?
2. Pretty niice thing to say about a group of peope in which 100%, ALL, EVERY LAST ONE of them are CRIMINALS!! So saying some of these CRIMINALS are probably good people i a heck of a compliment..
3. If something is illegal they should be punished for breaking the law.. Women that have late term abortions where it is ILLEGAL should absolutely be punshed..

The dems need to look into his history of bankruptcies, put that out.
Hmp65Rt.jpg



he certainly has a view of woman as inferior
Donald Trump, a champion of women? His female employees think so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...afac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html

Trump hires more female executives than men (PROOF))
https://www.facebook.com/donaldtrumppresident/videos/474082309421664/


In debates... she needs to be smarter and arrogant to him. She MUST be very careful to engage him in debate where she is not verbally sparing with him like a child. Make him appear the petulant childish one. and if she can come off smarter and uncowed by his actions..

Trump is smarter than her for one.. He will kill her in debates just like he did ALL the rest.. There has not yet been one dabate that Trump has not won..

Trump is going to win..
 
Memo to both Bushes: "I don't support Trump" means I support Hilary. Duh!

At least those two geniuses are consistent in not liking a guy with ten times the brains.

One gave us Gulf 1, 10 billion in expenses and 146 dead. His son: Iraq War, 4500 dead, thousands wounded, PTSD, and trillions in wasted money for a total loss. With Trump in the WH, they would still be sending half of their oil to us for free for the next hundred years.
 
Last edited:
Yeah use lies against him..

1. Take oil from ISIS.. Why not?
2. Pretty nice thing to say about a group of people in which 100%, ALL, EVERY LAST ONE of them are CRIMINALS!! So saying some of these CRIMINALS are probably good people i a heck of a compliment..
3. If something is illegal they should be punished for breaking the law.. Women that have late term abortions where it is ILLEGAL should absolutely be punished..

You beat me to it. All three points are spot on.
 
Last edited:
Them along with a long list of other Republican Leaders and Voters. Make no mistake there are more than a few Repubs that will Not be supporting Trump and they will not be forgiving of his actions in this election, he has ensured that the Dems will win the Whitehouse and made a laughing stock of the GOP. I almost feel sorry for them but they made their bed and now they are stuck with the results.

I'm not so confident Trump will lose. So far this race has been about as unpredictable as hell.

Nobody expected Trump to get very far let alone be the presumptive nominee. And Bernie wasn't given a chance in hell against Clinton that was supposed to be a shoe in.
 
An almost-certain Trump nomination certainly has put the weasel in the henhouse within the Republican party.

Hard to imagine how Trump would actually win. But the whole situation is chaotic enough that I wouldn't dismiss any possibility.

The problem is Populism. While it's not inherently bad, it can be disruptive. Mostly it comes in two forms. There's the sort represented by the Granges in the Midwest, which were strong for a while in the South & Midwest, and served as a grass-roots counterbalance to some big-money excesses of the time. Then there's the sort of populism that is driven by anger, and exemplified by xenophobia, racism, fear, and protectionism. The KKK is an extreme example of this sort.

Populism rises when we swing too far toward the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism. When there is too much cronyism, too much political corruption, too much general dysfunction. Like now. I hate it that we have allowed this level of concentration of wealth and power into so few hands. I'd hate to see the inevitable populist response put someone like Trump in power. He's more of a symptom of dysfunction than a correction to it.

But most folks who pay far more attention to politics than I are saying Trump doesn't have a chance. And are now turning their attention to the battleground of the Senate. Dems are hoping to regain control. Reps are hoping to avoid losing control. The House doesn't seem likely to be in play.
 
But most folks who pay far more attention to politics than I are saying Trump doesn't have a chance.

They have been saying this since before the first primary, and then again after every primary, and have been WRONG WRONG WRONG

Actually they have been extraordinarily consistent in being WRONG

So now they say "Trump has no chance against hillary", well, what's to stop their streak of being WRONG now?

Actually logic dictates the bet on exactly the opposite of what they say is the smart bet at this point..

People are voting Anti-establishment, why would the voters care that the establishment themselves aren't endorsing the anti-establishment guy?
Makes no sense..
 
Last edited:


Huckabee: "You guys have been wrong every step of the way" "Every prediction about this race has been wrong"
 
And the majority of republicans voters who have their big boy pants will have a handy list of those who will have no political future with them.

Welcome to obscurity.

I bet you actually believe that nonsense. Delusional
 
I'm not so confident Trump will lose. So far this race has been about as unpredictable as hell.

Nobody expected Trump to get very far let alone be the presumptive nominee. And Bernie wasn't given a chance in hell against Clinton that was supposed to be a shoe in.

We shall see, with so many Republican leaders not willing to endorse the Donald many Repubs will follow their lead, they Know he is not one of them and without strong support from within his own Party his chances of a win in Nov are extremely slim.
 
Back
Top Bottom