• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Donald Trump threatens GOP with third-party run

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nickqt said:
You do realize the cons are the ones with the knives out, right?

Projection and cognitive dissonance on the right about ol' Trump is pretty fun, though, so keep it up.
Click to expand...

Well for now I've got my popcorn out. I will be very intrigued to see how far he takes this.
 
nickqt said:
You do realize the cons are the ones with the knives out, right?

Projection and cognitive dissonance on the right about ol' Trump is pretty fun, though, so keep it up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why the liberal media is trying very hard to smear him. Taking everything out of context or outright lying.


They are desperate to keep him away from billery. They know the only defense she has against him is to automatically label him as a misogynist and that won't play well to anybody but their pussified manlet base like you. Moderates will flock away from that.

In a debate between them he'd just call her out on every lie and half truth and she'd have nothing left. He can't be controlled the usual way the establishment controls the undesirables, squeezing them out of the media and money. She already had a credibility problem and wouldn't stand a chance against him just calling her out on the bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Maddow (MSNBC) has some interesting "facts" about the same republican freak-out back when Ross Perot ran. And after republicans lost that election to Bill Clinton, republicans then AND EVEN TODAY claim senior Bush lost simply because Perot took away republican votes. Thus enabled Bill Clinton to win.

All of which, that republican theory, Maddow proved was total horse pucky.

Just the facts ma am?

Facts are, when Bush lost to Clinton, exit polling asked voters that voted for Perot, that "if" they had not voted Perot, for whom would they have voted?
Answer? BILL CLINTON, not senior Bush.
It was determined that without Perot in the race, many republicans would have simply stayed home.
Not switching to supporting senior Bush.
And senior Bush's national approval numbers were only at 33%.
Not exactly what a president would hope, for winning reelection.

And.... Maddow reminded that Perot actually dropped out of the race for a time, then rejoined the race later.
I had forgotten Perot had indeed temporally dropped out.
And as Maddow pointed out, during the time Perot was absent from the race, it was not senior Bush that gained in the polls, as would have been the case if in fact Perot was taking votes away from Bush, but the fact is that WITHOUT Perot in the race it was Bill Clinton's poll numbers that went up.

Analysis of that election proved Perot took away votes evenly from both Bush and Clinton.
Republicans were not hurt, nor helped by the third party candidate of Ross Perot.

And here we are again, talking about Trump as a their party candidate.
And the media is pressing this false assumption, by entirely forgetting history and the facts, that the republicans would be hurt if Trump ran as third party.
As with Perot, Trump too would no doubt take away evenly from both republicans and democrats.

Bottom line?
Bill Clinton would have easily won with or without Ross Perot.
And to assume Donald would hurt republicans and help democrats is just not proven analysis.

So, for republicans worried about a third party run from Donald Trump, I wouldn't get my panties all in a bunch over it.
Hillary would be hurt evenly with Trump running as third party.
Especially with a Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush scenario.
A lot of voters on both sides would be turned off and cast their vote for Donald Trump if for no other reason but as a protest vote against the establishment in general.
 
LegendKiller said:
Yeah, that's why the liberal media is trying very hard to smear him. Taking everything out of context or outright lying.


They are desperate to keep him away from billery. They know the only defense she has against him is to automatically label him as a misogynist and that won't play well to anybody but their pussified manlet base like you. Moderates will flock away from that.

In a debate between them he'd just call her out on every lie and half truth and she'd have nothing left. He can't be controlled the usual way the establishment controls the undesirables, squeezing them out of the media and money. She already had a credibility problem and wouldn't stand a chance against him just calling her out on the bullshit.
Click to expand...
You're either a liberal troll, or really fucking stupid.

Either way, I agree.

#Trump 2016

All day. Every day.

Also, please keep posting your delusional beliefs up for posterity. Nothing hurts the conservative dumbfuck brand more than idiots like you vomiting your delusions out into the open for the world to see.

Again, thanks in advance!
 
nickqt said:
You're either a liberal troll, or really fucking stupid.

Either way, I agree.

#Trump 2016

All day. Every day.

Also, please keep posting your delusional beliefs up for posterity. Nothing hurts the conservative dumbfuck brand more than idiots like you vomiting your delusions out into the open for the world to see.

Again, thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Hardly delusions. Love seeing you guys seize up though. It's fucking hilarious to see billery try to counter trump, get smacked aroudn, and back down. They know they can't beat him in a pr war. Nobody can. He might not be able to win but he can make certain whomever he doesn't like doesn't win either.

Don't you find it even the slightest bit refreshing to see somebody not play by the establishment game?


Ohh, wait, you're one of those who thinks this status quo of political dynasties and shitty ditto head fools is a great way to lead this country. Carry on.
 
LegendKiller said:
Hardly delusions. Love seeing you guys seize up though. It's fucking hilarious to see billery try to counter trump, get smacked aroudn, and back down. They know they can't beat him in a pr war. Nobody can. He might not be able to win but he can make certain whomever he doesn't like doesn't win either.

Don't you find it even the slightest bit refreshing to see somebody not play by the establishment game?


Ohh, wait, you're one of those who thinks this status quo of political dynasties and shitty ditto head fools is a great way to lead this country. Carry on.
Click to expand...
While your clear disdain of women implies that you fantasize about Hillary being smacked around by Donald Trump, it doesn't change the fact that Donald Trump as the Republican nominee will most likely not happen in this universe, but would result in Republicans losing all sorts of downticket races in 2016 if he were.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's the Republican party elite who are out for Trump. Not that I expect people with delusions to be able to recognize observable reality.

So yes, keep spouting off those delusions. Clearly I'm a huge fan of political dynasties because I don't support Jeb Bush and wish the US had a Congress, White House and Supreme Court full of Bernie Sanders.

Keep on keepin' on, chief.

Thanks in advance!
 
I would love to see Trump as president. I think it would be really entertaining, Imagine him meeting with Putin etc..

I think he is the right choice right now.
 
nickqt said:
While your clear disdain of women implies that you fantasize about Hillary being smacked around by Donald Trump, it doesn't change the fact that Donald Trump as the Republican nominee will most likely not happen in this universe, but would result in Republicans losing all sorts of downticket races in 2016 if he were.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's the Republican party elite who are out for Trump. Not that I expect people with delusions to be able to recognize observable reality.

So yes, keep spouting off those delusions. Clearly I'm a huge fan of political dynasties because I don't support Jeb Bush and wish the US had a Congress, White House and Supreme Court full of Bernie Sanders.

Keep on keepin' on, chief.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

I say smacking around for everybody, but nice projection you fucking pussy manlet.
 
If you would have listened to 20 July interview with Craig Hulet (Jade Helm Analysis), then you would have heard him tell that Jeb Bush is the one selected to be president. Although Jeb and Hildabeast ( http://www.hilldabeast.com/ ) will be the main candidates, the people get Bush when the system at the last hour, pulls Hilda's (support) funding.

Right now, Im seeing lots of overt support for Trump, but people are noticing the incredible over-the-top obsessive preoccupation with the media slandering Trump. (Many recognize that there is really only a one party system and that has been so effectively since JFK.) Also recognized is that Trump will necessarily go the way of Ross Perot if he gets too feasible with the people too close to the "finish line".

As stated, my view is that Trump serves the system's purpose for now by taking the attention/heat off Hilda.

I can tell you that it is totally over the top a federal offense as well as big time national security issue to run state department business/correspondence on your own private servers. (all of this particularly after the Snowden event.) Were I used to work in DoD, you would have been prison-ed for lots lots less.

Where the hell is our military/ex-military people's protest about this? All of these guys were required big time to undergo security training at least once annually (and not like you could avoid it if you tried).

You bet youre sweet ass that these people know that just this issue is big time.

===========================================
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
 
C1 said:
If you would have listened to 20 July interview with Craig Hulet (Jade Helm Analysis), then you would have heard him tell that Jeb Bush is the one selected to be president. Although Jeb and Hildabeast ( http://www.hilldabeast.com/ ) will be the main candidates, the people get Bush when the system at the last hour, pulls Hilda's (support) funding.

Right now, Im seeing lots of overt support for Trump, but people are noticing the incredible over-the-top obsessive preoccupation with the media slandering Trump. (Many recognize that there is really only a one party system and that has been so effectively since JFK.) Also recognized is that Trump will necessarily go the way of Ross Perot if he gets too feasible with the people too close to the "finish line".

As stated, my view is that Trump serves the system's purpose for now by taking the attention/heat off Hilda.

I can tell you that it is totally over the top a federal offense as well as big time national security issue to run state department business/correspondence on your own private servers. (all of this particularly after the Snowden event.) Were I used to work in DoD, you would have been prison-ed for lots lots less.

Where the hell is our military/ex-military people's protest about this? All of these guys were required big time to undergo security training at least once annually (and not like you could avoid it if you tried).

You bet youre sweet ass that these people know that just this issue is big time.

===========================================
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Click to expand...

How come the former SoSs aren't in trouble for doing the same thing? Please quote the Federal statute for this.
 
sportage said:
Maddow (MSNBC) has some interesting "facts" about the same republican freak-out back when Ross Perot ran. And after republicans lost that election to Bill Clinton, republicans then AND EVEN TODAY claim senior Bush lost simply because Perot took away republican votes. Thus enabled Bill Clinton to win.

All of which, that republican theory, Maddow proved was total horse pucky.

Just the facts ma am?

Facts are, when Bush lost to Clinton, exit polling asked voters that voted for Perot, that "if" they had not voted Perot, for whom would they have voted?
Answer? BILL CLINTON, not senior Bush.
It was determined that without Perot in the race, many republicans would have simply stayed home.
Not switching to supporting senior Bush.
And senior Bush's national approval numbers were only at 33%.
Not exactly what a president would hope, for winning reelection.

And.... Maddow reminded that Perot actually dropped out of the race for a time, then rejoined the race later.
I had forgotten Perot had indeed temporally dropped out.
And as Maddow pointed out, during the time Perot was absent from the race, it was not senior Bush that gained in the polls, as would have been the case if in fact Perot was taking votes away from Bush, but the fact is that WITHOUT Perot in the race it was Bill Clinton's poll numbers that went up.

Analysis of that election proved Perot took away votes evenly from both Bush and Clinton.
Republicans were not hurt, nor helped by the third party candidate of Ross Perot.

And here we are again, talking about Trump as a their party candidate.
And the media is pressing this false assumption, by entirely forgetting history and the facts, that the republicans would be hurt if Trump ran as third party.
As with Perot, Trump too would no doubt take away evenly from both republicans and democrats.

Bottom line?
Bill Clinton would have easily won with or without Ross Perot.
And to assume Donald would hurt republicans and help democrats is just not proven analysis.

So, for republicans worried about a third party run from Donald Trump, I wouldn't get my panties all in a bunch over it.
Hillary would be hurt evenly with Trump running as third party.
Especially with a Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush scenario.
A lot of voters on both sides would be turned off and cast their vote for Donald Trump if for no other reason but as a protest vote against the establishment in general.
Click to expand...

I never offered that Perot affected the outcome, merely that he drew a lot of votes. His pitch was much more centrist than Donald's which is aimed squarely at the Repub base. He wouldn't draw enough votes away from Hillary to get an electoral pissant's motor scooter half way around a dime. That can't be said for the eventual Repub nominee.

Here's Perot on the issues at the time-

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm

He was far, far away from the Repub base on many, but Donald morphs his positions to fall right in line with what they believe. He panders to their every whim which won't win him votes anywhere else.
 
C1 said:
If you would have listened to 20 July interview with Craig Hulet (Jade Helm Analysis), then you would have heard him tell that Jeb Bush is the one selected to be president. Although Jeb and Hildabeast ( http://www.hilldabeast.com/ ) will be the main candidates, the people get Bush when the system at the last hour, pulls Hilda's (support) funding.

Right now, Im seeing lots of overt support for Trump, but people are noticing the incredible over-the-top obsessive preoccupation with the media slandering Trump. (Many recognize that there is really only a one party system and that has been so effectively since JFK.) Also recognized is that Trump will necessarily go the way of Ross Perot if he gets too feasible with the people too close to the "finish line".

As stated, my view is that Trump serves the system's purpose for now by taking the attention/heat off Hilda.

I can tell you that it is totally over the top a federal offense as well as big time national security issue to run state department business/correspondence on your own private servers. (all of this particularly after the Snowden event.) Were I used to work in DoD, you would have been prison-ed for lots lots less.

Where the hell is our military/ex-military people's protest about this? All of these guys were required big time to undergo security training at least once annually (and not like you could avoid it if you tried).

You bet youre sweet ass that these people know that just this issue is big time.

===========================================
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Click to expand...

You're forgetting the give away. If you fold a $5 bill just right and look at it from the correct angle, you can see 911 foretold, evidence that the economy is about to crash and the truth that Angela Merkel is really a reptilian.
 
nickqt said:
You're forgetting the give away. If you fold a $5 bill just right and look at it from the correct angle, you can see 911 foretold, evidence that the economy is about to crash and the truth that Angela Merkel is really a reptilian.
Click to expand...

Also: Benghazi!
 
Hugo Drax said:
I would love to see Trump as president. I think it would be really entertaining, Imagine him meeting with Putin etc..

I think he is the right choice right now.
Click to expand...

No thanks, I voted for and also got to see Jesse Ventura have his time in office, learned my lesson.
 
Trump needs to stay with the Republicans. He has clearly and forcefully articulated and embraced the Rep party platform better than any other candidate in the race except possibly Hillary. For Trump to bolt the party would be to let the other Rep candidates off the hook.
 
LegendKiller said:
I say smacking around for everybody, but nice projection you fucking pussy manlet.
Click to expand...

lolololol...

You accuse him of projecting and then call him a "fucking pussy manlet" in the same sentence?

Even a moron could sense *that* slathering of irony.

The fact that you apparently missed it is rather telling.

*Please* support Trump. *Please* cast your vote for Trump.

...pretty please.
 
Annisman* said:
No man, I am legitimately enjoying watching his effect around here. Can you imagine a whole year of it ? Can you imagine four years of it ? What about eight...
Click to expand...

Yes please, let's find out. Get as many as you can to vote for Trump in the primary.
That would make dems sooooo mad!

Whatever will they do? Lololololol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top