The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[pelagius]

It is very late at night so this could be a thought of someone who is very very tired. How many of us threaten to not vote for Trump when finally go in and see hillary and trump will vote for Trump but lie to everyone who asks

Don't know. But not me. As I said earlier: she is 10x better than Trump (I think Trump is moral repugnant and voting for him is morally repugnant). But, sure, maybe I will write in Tagg Romney because I think the Republican party should embrace Mormons as their natural aristocracy/elite. No WASPs left, and evangelicals have proven to be opportunistic and unreliable.

[byu71]

Don't know. But not me. As I said earlier: she is 10x better than Trump (I think Trump is moral repugnant and voting for him is morally repugnant). But, sure, maybe I will write in Tagg Romney because I think the Republican party should embrace Mormons as their natural aristocracy/elite. No WASPs left, and evangelicals have proven to be opportunistic and unreliable.

Not to argue, but as far as moral impugnance, I find Hillary not 10 times but twice as impugnant as Trump

I do agree about evangelicals and maybe I could vote for Hillary to spite those who sat home and didn't vote for Romney

[Maximus]

Pulled this out of my six year old's school folder tonight. Kids these days...

is your kid donald trump at age 6?

[Topper]

I think you can infer from the other stuff of said up above. I can live with a neo-con republican party and I can live with a reformo-con republican party. My ideal would be a fiscally conservative/free trade republican party that emphasized technocratic competence (authentic Mitt Romney conservatism). I would prefer that conservatives don't suggest that the gold standard is viable (I'm an economist with a PhD from the University of Chicago ... It may be necessary as a pander but it's beyond stupid). I prefer conservatives that don't want to abolish the fed, etc.

I'd be very surprised if the future Republican party looks like any of the above things.

I identify with most of thoSe issues and believe they are consistent with th social libertarian views and fiscal conservative perspective. However there is absolutely no room for any of that in the Democratic Party.

I know pure libertarians might espouse gold standard and that but those are silly ideas. We won't eliminate the Fed but we should meet nitro its influence.

[Nakoma]

I have never wanted to believe campaign spin more than I do right now:

So 75% of Rubio's 10 percent of the overall vote is going to break for Kasich? That sounds like a huuuge tsunami that will sweep Kasich to the nomination. Not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not to argue, but as far as moral impugnance, I find Hillary not 10 times but twice as impugnant as Trump

You can go ahead and argue all you want, but that is not a word in the English language.

[New Mexican Disaster]

You can go ahead and argue all you want, but that is not a word in the English language.

I think it means he admires her. His posts have not been clear on that account. Possibly even has a crush.

[pelagius]

I think it means he admires her. His posts have not been clear on that account. Possibly even has a crush.

I little young for him, I think.

[myboynoah]

[YOhio]

Well, it was a good run. I've identified as a Republican for a long time. I suppose I will still do the Caucus next week, but I'm out. Vichy Republicans, the party is yours.

Vichy Republicans is a fantastic term. I'm with you, bro.

[byu71]

You can go ahead and argue all you want, but that is not a word in the English language.

Dang. I am so embarassed. My deepest apology.

I appreciate your pointing this error out.

Are you sure though? Did you google it?

[Uncle Ted]

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?63978-The-2016-Presidential-Election-Primary-Thread&p=1250661&viewfull=1#post1250661

[creekster]

You can go ahead and argue all you want, but that is not a word in the English language.

If it's not a word, it should be. It felt right as used here.

[myboynoah]

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1250661

So many pages back.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, UT.

[splitbamboo]

I think you can infer from the other stuff of said up above. I can live with a neo-con republican party and I can live with a reformo-con republican party. My ideal would be a fiscally conservative/free trade republican party that emphasized technocratic competence (authentic Mitt Romney conservatism). I would prefer that conservatives don't suggest that the gold standard is viable (I'm an economist with a PhD from the University of Chicago ... It may be necessary as a pander but it's beyond stupid). I prefer conservatives that don't want to abolish the fed, etc.

I'd be very surprised if the future Republican party looks like any of the above things.

I'm not very smart but are there smart people out there that could carve out a moderate platform that crosses over that moderate elements of dems and repubs and builds a third party? This two party stuff just isn't working.