• 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!

Donald Trump slams Jeb Bush, hints at independent bid

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Donald Trump slams Jeb Bush, hints at independent bid - LA Times

In an interview with the Post on Thursday and later in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Trump issued a thinly veiled threat that he could run as an independent candidate and pointedly would not commit to supporting the GOP ticket should he fail to win the nomination.

“I would have to see who the nominee is," he said.
<snip>
Trump is widely unpopular, with large majorities of Democrats and Republicans viewing him unfavorably, according to recent polls, but he also has an ardent following, and his comments about Mexican immigrants have clearly touched a nerve with some GOP voters.


this reminds me of a situation........
Perot_1992_first_infomercial.jpg


That worked out well for the GOP, didn't it?
:shock:

Who could be his "Stockdale" ? Ventura? Nugent? maybe Gene Simmons?

I know, he could select them on the next season of "The Apprentice" ?
 
If the Republican party won't give him the nomination, he'll fire it.
 
Trump will keep it interesting for a little longer, his continued comments will get plenty of coverage, but even as an Independent his chances are not so good.

I keep waiting for him to dig in on the Black community next, ensure he upsets several minorities before it is all said and done.
 
Donald Trump slams Jeb Bush, hints at independent bid - LA Times




this reminds me of a situation........
Perot_1992_first_infomercial.jpg


That worked out well for the GOP, didn't it?
:shock:

Who could be his "Stockdale" ? Ventura? Nugent? maybe Gene Simmons?

I know, he could select them on the next season of "The Apprentice" ?

And this reminds me of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Presidential election, both of whom siphoned away votes from Al Gore in Florida, some on purpose in the case of Nader and some by mistake in the case of ditzy Palm Beachers who thought a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore.

And since Donald Trump is good buds with Hillary and Bill, personally inviting them both to his most recent wedding, and since The Donald has lavished both of them with his money in support of her political ambitions and Bill's vanity projects, I suspect the little man will be linked to the Clintons far more than the GOP in the coming months.
 
And this reminds me of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Presidential election, both of whom siphoned away votes from Al Gore in Florida, some on purpose in the case of Nader and some by mistake in the case of ditzy Palm Beachers who thought a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore.

And since Donald Trump is good buds with Hillary and Bill, personally inviting them both to his most recent wedding, and since The Donald has lavished both of them with his money in support of her political ambitions and Bill's vanity projects, I suspect the little man will be linked to the Clintons far more than the GOP in the coming months.


a 3rd party candidate in an election (presumed) to be between Bush and Clinton, reminds you of Gore/Bush and not of an actually existing election between Clinton/Bush. ?

Interesting.


ps, I know you'll ignore it "the source"
but this is a nice concise summary of why you're wrong on the analysis
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
 
a 3rd party candidate in an election (presumed) to be between Bush and Clinton, reminds you of Gore/Bush and not of an actually existing election between Clinton/Bush. ?

Interesting.


ps, I know you'll ignore it "the source"
but this is a nice concise summary of why you're wrong on the analysis
The Ralph Nader Myth

You're right, I will ignore attempts to funnel me off to Daily Kos. No surprise there.
 
The Democrats really, really need Trump to do well, capture as many headlines with his drama queen antics in order to scare the voters. The meaner, leaner, more insane they can paint the other guy, the better chance they have of winning. The Democratic party hasn't won an election since Carter, they simply demonize. Fear is the greatest motivator and the whole design of these guys is to terrify people at the alternative.

The Donald is winning a name recognition contest fueled by the MSM, the Donal is a geek, a one man carnival side show, and like most side shows people will go out of their way to see it.

But there are two draw backs to this false backing of him, one it makes the rest of the Republican candidates look very palatable in comparison and two, if they are really successful in propping him up, the US may just have President Donald Trump.

What oh what will they do then?

The truth is, the Donaldis in this for the Donald, and has about zero chance of winning. The dems are so terrified of this coming election they need this
 

Thanks for posting a record that proves you wrong. Nader took away 97,000 votes, the majority of which would have gone to Gore or someone other than Bush. In addition, Buchanan took 17,500 votes, a large number of which even he never expected in areas where he was a non-factor and after the vote was attributed to people in Palm Beach and some other areas mistakenly punching the chad for Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore. In a State wide race where 500 votes was the difference, those two were significant factors in Gore losing Florida.

Your less than gracious apology is noted and accepted.
 
Thanks for posting a record that proves you wrong. Nader took away 97,000 votes, the majority of which would have gone to Gore or someone other than Bush. In addition, Buchanan took 17,500 votes, a large number of which even he never expected in areas where he was a non-factor and after the vote was attributed to people in Palm Beach and some other areas mistakenly punching the chad for Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore.

Your less than gracious apology is noted and accepted.

Thanks for admitting that (had you simply read the KOS article).... you aren't aware there were more than 3 candidates. Candidates like the WWP Moorehead cost Gore, just as much, if not more so than Nader.
The KOS article broke down "defecters", but you know ... you can't be bothered.

Your white flag is noted, a 2nd time.
 
Thanks for admitting that (had you simply read the KOS article).... you aren't aware there were more than 3 candidates. Candidates like the WWP Moorehead cost Gore, just as much, if not more so than Nader.
The KOS article broke down "defecters", but you know ... you can't be bothered.

Your white flag is noted, a 2nd time.

There are fringe candidates in every State - the two that turned Florida were Nader and Buchanan - you were wrong, period.

Moorehead, according to your own link which you presumably failed to look at or you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself this way, received about 1800 votes to Nader's 97,500 and you're going to try to tell us that Moorehead cost Gore Florida? You're hilarious. In fact, Buchanan took away far more of Gore's vote than Moorehead received in total.

But hey, like the Knight in Monty Python, I do appreciate your need to continue to claim victory as your legs are chopped out from under you.

https://youtu.be/mjEcj8KpuJw
 
At this rate the democrats are going to win for the next ten thousand years
 
And this reminds me of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Presidential election, both of whom siphoned away votes from Al Gore in Florida, some on purpose in the case of Nader and some by mistake in the case of ditzy Palm Beachers who thought a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore.

And since Donald Trump is good buds with Hillary and Bill, personally inviting them both to his most recent wedding, and since The Donald has lavished both of them with his money in support of her political ambitions and Bill's vanity projects, I suspect the little man will be linked to the Clintons far more than the GOP in the coming months.

And yet his overwhelming political support comes from Republicans.
 
Every time I am forced to yet witness another election process for the brain dead masses I can't help but think: an orchestrated B movie at its best.

You are fired Mr. Trump
 
There are fringe candidates in every State - the two that turned Florida were Nader and Buchanan - you were wrong, period.

Moorehead, according to your own link which you presumably failed to look at or you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself this way, received about 1800 votes to Nader's 97,500 and you're going to try to tell us that Moorehead cost Gore Florida? You're hilarious. In fact, Buchanan took away far more of Gore's vote than Moorehead received in total.

But hey, like the Knight in Monty Python, I do appreciate your need to continue to claim victory as your legs are chopped out from under you.

https://youtu.be/mjEcj8KpuJw


so your argument is, ceteris paribus, if Moorehead (communist!!!) had not been in the election, the people that voted for her would have voted Bush instead.

Laughable.
 
The support he currently has. All of it coming from Republicans and the right-wing.

He's barely a blip in most state polls and he's second or third after his recent announcement in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that often pick wildcards and have little effect on the outcome unless they happen to choose the prevailing choice.

And this is somehow "overwhelming" support in that special little world in which you reside.
 
Last edited:
He's barely a blimp in most state polls and he's second or third after his recent announcement in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that often pick wildcards and have little effect on the outcome unless they happen to choose the prevailing choice.

And this is somehow "overwhelming" support in that special little world in which you reside.

he is nationally preference polling in 2nd place for the GOP .
 
so your argument is, ceteris paribus, if Moorehead (communist!!!) had not been in the election, the people that voted for her would have voted Bush instead.

Laughable.

I didn't make any such idiotic argument - that fantasy's in your special world - your desperation is noted and proven by your need to lie about another poster's argument - I'm done with your nonsense.

You can post your juvenile "I win" now.
 
I didn't make any such idiotic argument - that fantasy's in your special world - your desperation is noted and proven by your need to lie about another poster's argument - I'm done with your nonsense.

You can post your juvenile "I win" now.


by ONLY focusing on Nader, in fact, you by definition made the argument; that the role of the other candidates had no effect.
you could have saved us time and just read the KOS link; you would be surprised to learn that 300,000 self-identified "Democrats" voted Bush.
now- with that info in hand, still want to blame NADER?
 
Back
Top Bottom