God damn Chris Christie.

He dropped out of the republican race and then started doing controversial shit just to try to stay relevant.

Controversy loves media.

As a voter in New Jersey I can speak with authority on this - Chris Christie has lost any ounce of respectability in this state that he still had. What a blatant (and frankly) ugly display of political opportunism. He's just jumping on a supposed "Trump Bandwagon" to try to stay nationally relevant and try to kiss-ass his way to the VP slot. He's a fat guy who needs to exercise. Rant done. Keep on hating Trump.

Trump will actually hand to presidency to Hillary. He has a nearly 50% support in the GOP right now, but he also has nearly 50% of republicans who say they will never support him. Only 33% of democrats say the same about Hillary. If Trump wins, its game over for the GOP. Rubio actually fares much better.

^This guy (+1)

You've listened to political pundits too much. They don't know shit.

@The Lord - here is a very important question that will elucidate the level of your support for Trump and your commitment to the cult of his personality:

Is there anything that Trump could say or do (or has said and done) that would automatically disqualify him as a presidential nomination in your mind?

^I'll answer for Lord. When compared to Hillary Clinton, the answer is no. But then again, her last name is Clinton. Whatever wrong she says and does will be overlooked.

^As I believed, some people will still support him anyway. He can declare himself pro-rape, pro-murder and a defensor of KKK's rights and he'll still have a bunch of morons supporting him.

Hillary is bad, but Trump manages to be WORSE.

Is there anything that Trump could say or do (or has said and done) that would automatically disqualify him as a presidential nomination in your mind?

Sure there is. I don't know if there is any single sentence, but I support him because of the following:

- Unlike McCain and Romney, he can win elections. He has demonstrated that by winning 3/4 of the primaries/caucuses thus far, and he almost won the 4th one. He has an incredible nationwide lead in the polls compared to his GOP rivals.

And don't bring up his favourability ratings, they don't matter much at this point. If they were something to look at right now, then Carson and Sanders would be the front-runners on each side. Trump will focus on his cross-party appeal once he gets the Republican nomination.

- Trump has had an impact on American politics even before getting elected. He made the discussion about radical Islamic terrorism, illegal immigration, and political correctness a prominent one. Yes, there was talk about it earlier too, but not at the current scale. He has mobilized tens of thousands of people who didn't speak up earlier.

We waited for the Ron Paul revolution for 30 years. It never happened. He couldn't beat the GOP establishment, not to mention the progressive media. Trump mobilized people for his cause in months. His cause is not the same as Ron Paul's, but there are similarities.

- Apart from that, Trump is an intelligent guy who is not bound by the will of donors and special interests. He won't be able to deliver everything he promises and we all know that, but I think he has a much better understanding on how to get things done internationally than all those career politicians. Who knows, he might broker a deal with China and get rid of North Korean nuclear missiles. His strategy on how to deal with ISIS sounds much more reasonable than anything Cruz or Rubio or the Dems have said.

----

So, if Trump started *consistently* doing and saying things that go against the above, I would reconsider voting him. If he started saying "Black Lives Matter", repeating the wage gap myth, claiming America needs more positive discrimination, then I would seriously consider other candidates. If he doesn't have a clear lead in delegates after Super Tuesday, I might question his ability to win elections.

Also, if Rubio started taking bolder stances on controversial but right issues, I would gain more respect for him. For instance, if he had brought up the fact that GWB was a disaster for the Republican party ahead of Trump, then his stock would have risen in my eyes. Same with Eminent Domain. That said, I have a hard time seeing him as anything but a weak puppet of his donors and special interests + the GOP establishment.

Hillary is bad, but Trump manages to be WORSE.

Perhaps if both were capable. Trump is very unlikely to get any of his current proposals passed as both parties hate his guts. He'll have zero support from Congress unless he seriously moderates his views.

Hillary, on the other hand, has every ability to utilize power if she's granted it.

We waited for the Ron Paul revolution for 30 years. It never happened. He couldn't beat the GOP establishment, not to mention the progressive media. Trump mobilized people for his cause in months. His cause is not the same as Ron Paul's, but there are similarities.

I think I just threw up. You did not just compare Ron Paul to Donald Trump.

Donald Trump said that the only problem with our nuclear triad is that we don't use it enough. He wants to impose tariffs and reduce free trade. He's been pro-choice for most of his life. He supports eminent domain for private use. And you want to compare him to Ron frickin Paul? You're delusional.

Ron Paul didn't win in 2012 because the GOP tried to erase him from the entire election by giving him absolutely no media coverage. Ron Paul is the most consistent and honest politician of the last 20 years and Donald Trump is the epitome of political opportunism and demagoguery.

Apart from that, Trump is an intelligent guy who is not bound by the will of donors and special interests. He won't be able to deliver everything he promises and we all know that, but I think he has a much better understanding on how to get things done internationally than all those career politicians. Who knows, he might broker a deal with China and get rid of North Korean nuclear missiles. His strategy on how to deal with ISIS sounds much more reasonable than anything Cruz or Rubio or the Dems have said.

1) Trump is not bound by the will of donors and special interests because he himself is a donor and special interest
2) If he knows he won't deliver everything he promises then he's purposefully lying and hoodwinking voters in order to gain traction and support, which shows the absolute truth that Donald Trump is not an outsider but part of the political elite.
3) Broker a deal with China - at what cost? Does he give up his promise to get back jobs from America in order to get rid of Nuclear Missiles in NK?? Do you actually know what his policies and programs and political philosophy are? No, because no one does, including Trump.

Edited 3/1/2016 15:26:00

I think I just threw up. You did not just compare Ron Paul to Donald Trump.

You're just as theatrical as Hillary. And it doesn't work. Leave it.

Donald Trump said that the only problem with our nuclear triad is that we don't use it enough.

Who cares? He says a lot of things he doesn't mean literally. You just "exposed" him for saying off-the-record that his hard-line immigration proposal is a negotiation tactic. If you took everything Marco Rubio says literally, then you would have to think that in his opinion, Obama is a secret agent sent to destroy America. That was the thing he repeated 5 times when Christie called him out, remember?

He wants to impose tariffs and reduce free trade.

I don't necessarily agree with Trump on this, but I'm not a blind free trade believer either. Free trade is good when applied in moderation, it's not a solution to all problems.

He's been pro-choice for most of his life.

Yup, and that's a good thing. It amazes me that both Ron and Rand oppose people's freedom to choose abortion within a reasonable amount of time. Trump is clearly pro-liberty here. Ron and Rand are anti-liberty.

He supports eminent domain for private use.

Trump supports eminent domain for public use, and for private use if there is a tangible public interest. I fully agree with Trump. Without eminent domain, there wouldn't be roads, sewers, powerlines, pipelines. The US would be a third-world country without it. It baffles me how some people can be so stubborn and ideological that they cannot see the obvious advantages of it.

Trump and Paul have common ground when it comes to freedom of speech. They both want to avoid the US wasting its military in foreign wars, though Trump's plan how to do it seems more realistic. And in some ways, Trump comes out as more pro-freedom as the Pauls (like with abortion).

Ron Paul didn't win in 2012 because the GOP tried to erase him from the entire election by giving him absolutely no media coverage.

Absolutely, and they succeeded too. They are now trying to fight Trump as well, but Trump is not going to lose. You absolutely made my point.

Ron Paul is the most consistent and honest politician of the last 20 years and Donald Trump is the epitome of political opportunism and demagoguery.

There is nothing consistent about being pro-life and claiming to be the vanguard of liberty at the same time. Ron Paul has made compromises too, but he still didn't make it. Trump is not an angel, but at least he gets things done.

1) Trump is not bound by the will of donors and special interests because he himself is a donor and special interest

What does that even mean? Everybody uses the system to their benefit more or less. Trump is being honest about it and he wants to make the system to incentivize productive behaviour. The idea that people should be selfless and not take advantage of the system sounds, frankly, like a communist utopia. And we both know communism doesn't work.

2) If he knows he won't deliver everything he promises then he's purposefully lying and hoodwinking voters in order to gain traction and support, which shows the absolute truth that Donald Trump is not an outsider but part of the political elite.

No politician is going to deliver everything they promise. You are holding Trump to a much higher standard than everyone else, and it's too obvious. Do you really think that the US will not be part of any international conflicts if Rand gets elected president, just because he says so? GWB said he wanted to focus on domestic issues, and look what happened.

3) Broker a deal with China - at what cost? Does he give up his promise to get back jobs from America in order to get rid of Nuclear Missiles in NK??

You may not understand this but making deals means compromising. Trump is a good dealmaker so his compromises will be favourable for America. If you don't want to compromise, then you don't get anything done. Then you end up like Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders.

Do you actually know what his policies and programs and political philosophy are? No, because no one does, including Trump.

I have a general idea. Read his web page for reference. On the other hand, what does it matter what Marco Rubio says he stands for, if his donors and special interests tell him what to do? Could you predict Bush's or Obama's presidency by what they said they would do?

Who cares? He says a lot of things he doesn't mean literally.

Then why should I or anyone else vote for him if we can't reasonably expect him to accomplish the things listed in his platform. Its not that he says "a lot of things" he doesn't mean, everything he says he doesn't mean because he intends to negotiate down from his standards all the way to the point where he'll be agreeing with the Democrats on policy. His entire record and political attitudes for the majority of his life have not only been averse to the political policies he's advocating now, they've been completely 180 degrees opposite. Sure you can vote for Trump as a Republican in 2016, but based on how frequently he's changed his political affiliation...who knows, maybe he'll be running in 2020 as a Democrat. Is that really who you want to elect? Someone who's political philosophy and ideology is as amorphous and fluid as water? If Trump wants to run as a Democrat and support policies of a Democrat, let him! But for him to run as a conservative while secretly being a closeted liberal Democrat is an atrocious affront to the GOP and its base.

Free trade is good when applied in moderation, it's not a solution to all problems.

So you don't care that he's used the free trade system throughout his business career to amass billions? You're going to give him a free pass because all of a sudden he's now decided that he doesn't like free trade? Oh please, the double standard is laughable. He's used the immigration system throughout his business career to help foreign workers at the expense of Americans. At a Palm Beach Club owned by Trump he turned down 94.4% of American job applicants. Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing my friend. You may come to regret it.

Trump is clearly pro-liberty here. Ron and Rand are anti-liberty.

lmao. Yes that's why Trump supports reauthorizing the Patriot Act, increased NSA surveillance and metadata collection, torture, and detainment of US citizens without due process. Trump hasn't fought for liberty and freedom and the constitution for one day of his life. Trump's idea for fighting for the US Constitution is accusing Barack Obama of not being eligible to be President because of his birth. Your blinded love for Trump is quite blatant.

Trump supports eminent domain for public use, and for private use if there is a tangible public interest. I fully agree with Trump. Without eminent domain, there wouldn't be roads, sewers, powerlines, pipelines.

I don't think you get the difference between public and private uses of eminent domain. The government can already use eminent domain on people's private land to build things for public benefit, such as infrastructure or educational buildings. What Conservatives and the GOP have been opposed to (and what Donald Trump does not oppose) is the use of eminent domain to help private companies or businesses make money by providing land for investment and construction. You can't and should not be able to get the government to take an old lady's house away and then give it away to a billionaire to build a parking lot for his limousines. If this is your definition of protecting private property rights, I suggest a read of the Federalist Papers.

Ron Paul has made compromises too, but he still didn't make it.

Rand Paul even said that his father is not libertarian, but libertarian-ish. More accurately Ron and Rand Paul (along with Representative Justin Amash) are conservatarians or paleoconservatives. Its not called making compromises, its just that their political philosophy is an offshoot of libertarianism. That does not mean however that they made compromises. They are consistent, as in they don't change their mind on political issues every couple of years because it will get them more votes.

No politician is going to deliver everything they promise. You are holding Trump to a much higher standard than everyone else, and it's too obvious.

Here's a better question: Do you think Trump will deliver on anything he promises? My standard for Trump is higher (if it is) because he himself has elevated the standard to judge him. And consistently, based on his record and attitude, fails to live up to them.

There is nothing consistent about being pro-life and claiming to be the vanguard of liberty at the same time.

Ah. The "Libertarians can't be pro-life" myth. Let me debunk that for you, as it's quite simple. Unborn children count as individuals, thus they have their own rights as well. The right to life, according to most people, trumps the right to choice,convenience,etc.

Being Pro-Life and Pro-Liberty is very consistent, as you're protecting those who are typically murdered without having a voice.

Trump supports eminent domain for public use, and for private use if there is a tangible public interest. I fully agree with Trump. Without eminent domain, there wouldn't be roads, sewers, powerlines, pipelines. The US would be a third-world country without it. It baffles me how some people can be so stubborn and ideological that they cannot see the obvious advantages of it.

It's not road building that people have a problem with. It's when eminent domain is used to steal people's houses in order to build a shopping mall or something else that's not a necessity.

As a voter in New Jersey I can speak with authority on this - Chris Christie has lost any ounce of respectability in this state that he still had. What a blatant (and frankly) ugly display of political opportunism. He's just jumping on a supposed "Trump Bandwagon" to try to stay nationally relevant and try to kiss-ass his way to the VP slot. He's a fat guy who needs to exercise. Rant done. Keep on hating Trump.

Never before I think I have agreed entirely on a political issue with Jai, haha. I have a lot to say about my constituent, so I can relate to what it feels like, when you hate the person who represents you.

Then why should I or anyone else vote for him if we can't reasonably expect him to accomplish the things listed in his platform.

I don't think anyone really needs a wall between Mexico and the US. Trump says he will use the wall as a negotiating chip. Sounds reasonable. As long as he gets the problem solved, I don't care if he builds a wall or simply increases the amount of border guards. Doesn't mean he doesn't deliver what he promises.

His entire record and political attitudes for the majority of his life have not only been averse to the political policies he's advocating now, they've been completely 180 degrees opposite.

It's just realistic that if you run as a Democrat, you have to support most of the Democratic talking points and vice versa. I, as an independent, don't have any problem with him sometimes identifying as a Republican and sometimes as a Democrat. I agree with some things the Dems say as some things the Reps say. I wouldn't have a problem with Trump running as a Democrat as long as he opposed political correctness, Black Lives Matter, and generally wasn't a puppet of the Dem establishment.

Trump has taken a clear stance on illegal immigration. He got tons of criticism for saying that Mexico is not sending their best to the US, which is a true statement. He rightfully got a lot of support for taking that criticism.

Trump said that GWB was a disaster for the GOP. Nobody forced him to say it, but it was important that at least somebody prominent in the GOP addressed the elephant in the room so that the party can start moving on instead of hanging themselves on the Bush legacy.

You're going to give him a free pass

I'm not giving him a free pass on anything, but I will see things in context. If the system incentivizes doing something, then everybody will do it if they want to be successful. It's not nice he did it but it's a minor point. I'm more interested in what he will likely do as president than what people have dug from his past and largely taken out of context.

That said, why didn't Rand Paul finance his campaign with non-lobbyist donations? Like Ben Carson did? Why did he take Trump's money in the past if he thinks that Trump is such a bad guy? You see, nobody is perfect and we don't live in a perfect world.

Yes that's why Trump supports reauthorizing the Patriot Act, increased NSA surveillance and metadata collection, torture, and detainment of US citizens without due process.

Don't get me wrong, Trump isn't perfect. I absolutely dislike what he says about Edward Snowden and related stuff. I would love to see other Republicans with a good agenda and realistic chances of getting elected, just to have more choice and competition. But I don't see anyone. Like you admitted, Ron Paul was ignored to death for the last 20-30 years and he couldn't do anything about it. I will take someone with 60% of my agenda and 70% chance of getting elected over someone with 70% my agenda and 0% chance of getting elected.

You can't and should not be able to get the government to take an old lady's house away and then give it away to a billionaire to build a parking lot for his limousines.

That's not what private use for public benefit means. A better example would be building a factory that can employ 5 000 people.

That does not mean however that they made compromises. They are consistent, as in they don't change their mind on political issues every couple of years because it will get them more votes.

Yeah, and in issues that are less important to Ron and Rand they just "happen" to agree with the GOP establishment? What a lucky coincidence. Certainly not to attract voters.

Do you think Trump will deliver on anything he promises?

I certainly think he will do something tangible with regards to illegal immigration and radical Islamic terrorism. He might do something with North Korea and ISIS, but that would be a bonus. If he did nothing with regards to the first two things, I would be disappointed.

Moreover, he has already done a lot by starting a large, public debate over the issues. He is the sole reason why the GOP debates were watched by 24 million people and not 2 million. He has brought a lot of people to the political process, there is no need to speculate about that.

Being Pro-Life and Pro-Liberty is very consistent, as you're protecting those who are typically murdered without having a voice.

Only if you define life beginning at conception, which is an arbitrary line.

I support both the prospective mother and the prospective father having a chance do decline parenthood for a number of weeks after conception. This should be their freedom of choice. But after that amount of weeks, I see the child's interest as more important. The parents already had their say.

If you think life begins earlier, then why don't you think sperm cells are living things as well? What a huge mass murder that must feel like to you when you masturbate.

Also, if you think that life begins at conception, then you surely oppose a woman's right to abortion after being raped, as the child's right to life obviously surpasses the woman's right not to give birth.

Wall of text everywhere!!

^If the Chinese can do it, so can I.