The Trump Card...

[cheri1122]

Liberty University is a bastion of conservative thought, so yes, enemy territory. It was classy of them to invite Sanders, and to listen to him - applause for that.
But the question was whether any Republicans/conservatives have appeared in front of a known Democrat/liberal audience? If not, why not?
I have nothing but contempt for any protester who grabs the mic from a speaker - and that goes triple for West, who has his own microphone and stage to rant on.

 

[aristotle]

Liberty University is a bastion of conservative thought, so yes, enemy territory. It was classy of them to invite Sanders, and to listen to him - applause for that.
But the question was whether any Republicans/conservatives have appeared in front of a known Democrat/liberal audience? If not, why not?
I have nothing but contempt for any protester who grabs the mic from a speaker - and that goes triple for West, who has his own microphone and stage to rant on.

Rand Paul has made deliberate efforts to increase his outreach to voting blocs not normally friendly to GOP or conservative policy. Ted Cruz, to a lesser extent, has as well. Donald Trump intends to win the Hispanic vote. Yes, he really does. I'm liking Trump more everyday. He makes me cringe a little but applaud a lot. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a patriotic, law and order president?

 

[cheri1122]

Rand Paul has made deliberate efforts to increase his outreach to voting blocs not normally friendly to GOP or conservative policy. Ted Cruz, to a lesser extent, has as well. Donald Trump intends to win the Hispanic vote. Yes, he really does. I'm liking Trump more everyday. He makes me cringe a little but applaud a lot. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a patriotic, law and order president?

Almost all the candidates are "making efforts to increase their outreach", but that's not what I asked. Every article I've read about a Republican/conservative candidate speaking to a specific group, it's usually an echo chamber. Sometimes, a mixed group, but never what you'd call 'enemy territory'. Bernie gets it: in order to find ways to negotiate, we need to really listen to each other. I see so little of it, that Liberty U's invitation and Bernie's acceptance was pretty newsworthy, IMO.
I'd love to have a patriotic POTUS, but I think we might disagree on what exactly that means, lol. I consider Sanders patriotic because he wants to leave the US in better shape, and he sees investments in people, education, infrastructure, as a better bet than investing in the military. We need the military for defense, but it gets used to meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations instead, and that's wrong on many levels.

 

[Turtle]

What the candidates won't tell us is the actual extent of giveaways to the already wealthy...

Honestly, would it matter even a little bit to you if any Republican candidate told you think they aren't telling us? If all of them stood there and detailed 100% of the actual extent of the giveaways to the already wealthy, would that change how you vote?

 

[cheri1122]

Honestly, would it matter even a little bit to you if any Republican candidate told you think they aren't telling us? If all of them stood there and detailed 100% of the actual extent of the giveaways to the already wealthy, would that change how you vote?

Yes and no. Yes, it would matter, because it would change my opinion of their character. And no, because it wouldn't change my vote. Not a single Republican candidate reflects my views on what needs to happen to "make America great again".

 

[RLENT]

Enemy territory? Liberty University invited Sanders to speak at their school and he accepted. By all accounts, Bernie Sanders was treated with courtesy and respect.

I watched the entire event on C-SPAN ... thought it would be interesting. It was.

I'd say that generally speaking he was treated with courtesy and respect ... although I thought I heard something that sounded like booing at a couple of points. It was fairly muted ... which isn't at all surprising because the event included not only Liberty students (I think attendance was mandatory for them) but also Sanders supporters ... who were seated up front, near the stage - which was probably where all the live mics were.

If one wasn't paying close attention, one might have gotten the impression (from all the cheering) that the crowd were all Bernie fans ...

But the camera panning across the crowd dispelled that myth ... since most of the crowd were largely stone-faced as he spoke.

Nonetheless, I'd bet that Sander's appeal - which was largely on a Judeo-Christian moral basis - probably made an impression on more than a few.

 

[cheri1122]

I was dismayed [but not surprised] to hear the reaction of one student afterwards, who said he thinks government shouldn't be responsible for addressing poverty - that's strictly the church's business.
At least it was a start at dialogue across the aisle.

 

[Turtle]

But the question was whether any Republicans/conservatives have appeared in front of a known Democrat/liberal audience? If not, why not?

Setting aside the fact that liberal audiences for political speeches are historically rude to and intolerant of conservative speakers, these are party primary elections, not general elections, so the candidates are primarily focused on winning the votes of the people who are registered voters of their party. The Republican candidates are not at this point running against Bernie Sanders or anyone else who is not a Republican. You may see some of the speak at non-partisan and Democrat-heavy audiences in the 15 states with open primaries in order to see if they can garner votes from those with no declared political party affiliation, as historically even in states with open primaries people tend to vote for their affiliated party.

The exception to voting along party lines in open primaries, are of course, in the cases where opposing party voters, like Democrats, say, organize and vote for the Republican candidate which they think can most easily be defeated by their Democratic candidate in the general election. One of the clearest example of that was the 2008 party primaries where John McCain failed to win a single primary race among Republican voters prior to Super Tuesday, yet Democrats voted for him like crazy in the open primary state, pushing him from a near-forgotten candidate to the front runner. In New Hampshire, Mitt Romney won handily the Republican vote, but McCain won because of the Democrats who wanted McCain to run against Obama instead of Romney. Same thing happened in South Carolina with Mike Huckabee, who won the Republican vote in a landslide but McCain killed it with the Democrats.

Republicans have tried the same thing many times, but they're amateurs when it comes to crossover voting to get the opponent they want. In 2008, Rush Limbaugh had his "Operation Chaos" movement that was the best known of them, where Republicans wanted the Republicans to get out the vote for Hilary, because they felt any Republican had a better chance against her than against Obama.

So basically, these candidates, at this point in the election process, are focused on courting voters from their own party to set themselves apart fro the other Republican candidates, not the Democrat candidates. Jeb Bush, for example, is far more concerned about Donald Trump and his voters than he is Bernie Sanders and the Democratic voters.

 

[RLENT]

No, Donald Trump Did Not Tell That Dumb*** He’s Going To Kill All The Muslims

 

[muttly]

So much hypocrisy and selective outrage, mostly from the left regarding this Trump 'questioner' incident.

 

[davekc]

What the candidates won't tell us is the actual extent of giveaways to the already wealthy [people and corporations], because they depend upon them for the obscene amounts of money they need to run a campaign, and because they happen to be among the wealthy themselves.
Bernie Sanders is not wealthy, and he sees money for education and infrastructure as investment in our future - one that is more promising than tax breaks for the 'job creators'. [Who are not, as the politicians claim, the corporations. Jobs are created solely in response to increased demand for product or service, not because a company has more money to spend.] The Republicans just keep insisting that tax breaks for businesses create jobs, in spite of all the evidence proving them wrong. Now they're doing exactly the same thing in response to the videos of Planned Parenthood: insisting on defunding them because they break the law, even after at least 6 states and Congress found no evidence, and claiming existing clinics can satisfy the need. Funny, when a judge in La asked the state to provide evidence of existing clinics to replace PP, the list was loaded with dentists, audiologists, plastic surgeons, ear, nose & throat specialists, etc. All of whom had "billed using family planning codes", according to the state's attorneys. I think they're investigating the wrong clinics, lol.
I'd like to be nonpartisan, but it's hard to see the Republicans as caring about the future, and about all the citizens they're very well paid to represent. And it's really hard to believe Trump could be taken seriously as a candidate, while Bernie Sanders gets ignored. How many Republicans have appeared in 'enemy territory' to talk about their ideas? Any of them?

I'm certainly not one to raise the flag for corporate welfare. We shouldn't have that any more than bloated entitlements. The problem is we are broke. So free college education and all these other things aren't going to happen. Simply no money for it. There will always be a degree of corporate welfare because our political system (both democrat and republicans) operate on it. But if one exists, it can't be a reason to have the other which is what you are advocating. Both need to be cut in my opinion.
With regards to business, we have the highest tax rate in the world. They get their breaks but make no mistake in a global economy, they will go abroad if the profits are there. They are doing it now. That isn't as much of a political position as it is a reality. Wanting more government isn't going to fix this type of problem.

 

[xiggi]

The problem is our politicians don't care if there's no money, if it will buy votes they will do it. Oh probably zero evidence that politicians buy votes.

 

[Turtle]

So much hypocrisy and selective outrage, mostly from the left regarding this Trump 'questioner' incident.

Remember when Obama "said he was a Muslim!!!" in that video where he really didn't say that? Hypocrisy and selective outrage knows no political bent.

 

[muttly]

Remember when Obama "said he was a Muslim!!!" in that video where he really didn't say that? Hypocrisy and selective outrage knows no political bent.

No actually. Wasn't referring to that at all. Mostly about politicians selectively appalled who want Trump to denounce some stranger for calling Obama a Muslim. They're outraged, outraged.
One of those politicians, Hillary Clinton, blathered on about how Trump was so awful for not calling out that fellow, but back in 2008 some members of her campaign circulated a specific photo of Obama along with other information regarding his upbringing.

Hypocrisy and selective outrage number two would be Obama's White House spokesman, SO offended by Trump( again, it was the guy in the audience's words not Trump's) that he blamed Trump, republicans, and said the man represents part of his base.
Like some random knucklehead at a rally says something stupid and it's supposed to represent part of the base. There will be an idiot or two at any politicians rally. That's if the guy at the Trump rally isn't a Clinton campaign plant. He's currently in the witness protection program because I haven't seen an interview of him since.

Go back to 2012. Remember ole VP Joe Biden speaking to a black audience in Virginia at a campaign rally. He said Romney and the republicans, if elected , 'Will put y'all back in chains'. Obama, or anyone from his campaign, Democrats, they didn't call on Biden to apologize for his comment. Obama's campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter's answer at the time was that Obama probably agrees with Biden's sentiments and she sees no problem with Biden's comments.

Josh Earnest goes after Trump for Muslim non-response

Biden: GOP Will 'Put Y'all Back in Chains'

 

[muttly]

Links in reference to my previous post about Clinton and her campaign operatives regarding Obama.

Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended as a smear

And this one regarding a certain e-mail:

Birtherism: Where it all began

So Clinton is castigating Trump for not defending Obama in saying he's not a Muslim. Something that began with her previous sinking Presidential campaign.

 

[jjtdrv4u]

about bankruptcies, with all the sensitivity in our business about deadbeat companies that go bankrupt and stiff their drivers...would any self-respecting truck driver work for a company that has gone bankrupt?

and if so, would they vote for a con man businessman that has gone bankrupt 4 times?
one bankruptcy would be enough for me not to vote for the donald duck trump, lol...

 

[Turtle]

No actually.

I'm sure by now you're Googled "Obama said he was a Muslim" and have seen the video, or at least where it can be viewed. It was a simple gaff but conservatives went bat crap crazy, wrongly characterizing it as 'a shocking admission on live TV that he is a Muslim, and then desperately tried to backpedal out of it.' I pointed it out for the reasons I've already stated.

Wasn't referring to that at all. Mostly about politicians selectively appalled who want Trump to denounce some stranger for calling Obama a Muslim. They're outraged, outraged.

Yes, I know. They want him to denounce the guy, but if you watch the video he had already dismissed the guy right up front and the answer Trump gave didn't give the guy's question any validity, either. I suppose Trump could have responded with, "Are you ...that... f'ing... stupid?" but somebody would be outraged over that, too.

I don't give this manufactured outrage any more credence than I give any other manufactured outrage. When you give manufactured outrage credence, then you get into scenarios where you have to figure out who's the most stoopid, the guy who opened his mouth in public and let the whole world know how stupid he is by asking that question, or those who are outraged, outraged I tell you, over Trump's failure to denounce him for it. It's a tough call, and a waste of time.

 

[Turtle]

Welp, so much for the scenario of having to figure out who's the most stoopid, the guy who asked the stoopid question or those outraged over Trump's failure to denounce him for it. The winner of that context goes to Hope Hicks, Trump's spokeswoman, who correctly clarified that Trump was not taking the question on face value and that he didn't take the question seriously, but in the next breath attached meaning to Trump's answer which explicitly implies that he took the question seriously, and worse, validates the ridiculous fake outrage by liberals.

He did not hear the man say that "Muslims" needed to be "gotten rid of." He thought that was being said about Islamic State training camps. "I think that’s how Mr. Trump interpreted it," she said. "It was: Are there camps in the United States? I don't know, we’re looking into it. It’s a very blanket response. The questioner doesn’t specify whether he’s talking about domestic or foreign training camps. I don’t think he has a fundamental knowledge of the training camps that exist here in the United States."

For this retarded attempt to appease the press, Hope Hicks gets the rarely-issued Janeway Facepalm, who's eyes alone so forcefully reveal the sheer stupidity of the remarks that a facepalm would hide.

 

[cheri1122]

I'm certainly not one to raise the flag for corporate welfare. We shouldn't have that any more than bloated entitlements. The problem is we are broke. So free college education and all these other things aren't going to happen. Simply no money for it. There will always be a degree of corporate welfare because our political system (both democrat and republicans) operate on it. But if one exists, it can't be a reason to have the other which is what you are advocating. Both need to be cut in my opinion.
With regards to business, we have the highest tax rate in the world. They get their breaks but make no mistake in a global economy, they will go abroad if the profits are there. They are doing it now. That isn't as much of a political position as it is a reality. Wanting more government isn't going to fix this type of problem.

"We're" far from broke - there's plenty of money, the question is what to spend it on. [And there'd be more money if the many 'loopholes' that are abused were closed off, too]. Education, health care, infrastructure, those are investments in a common future. "Business friendly" policies are how we got to the place where a former hedge fund owner can buy a pharmaceutical concern, then jack the price of an important drug up by 5000%, because he wants more profit. [And they say poor people are "entitled"!] Joni Ernst is still referring to business as "job creators", as if they create jobs like they're widgets - nothing to do with demand for their product or service, right? And here's a news flash: business would have gone completely overseas already, if it would increase their profits to do so. There are many reasons they don't, [language, culture barriers, import/export regs], but they prefer to be American - they just don't want to pay for the privilege.
The tax rate has been much higher, and businesses both survived and continued to profit, despite it. That they don't want to return to those days [in spite of all the evidence that cutting taxes does nothing good for anyone except those whose taxes are cut] is the same reason for the merger & acquisition frenzy: more profits. Then, more profits. And still more profits. Where does it end?
Nobody wants 'more' government, we want government that is of, by, and for the people.

PS Funny how those who yell the loudest about 'small government' and 'burdensome regulations' are continuously enlarging the scope of government into the reproductive rights of women, and introducing hundreds of new regulations to do it.

 

[RLENT]

Birfers and other assorted wing-nuts now going for "Trump Truther-ism":

Meet the Trump Truthers: Media figures insist bigoted Trump questioner was just a liberal plant