Trump explained by Blueraider_Mike

[Blueraider_Mike]

I am going to give you the reasons why Trump is doing so well and why I think in the general he will win because he will pull a lot democrats with him...and as I have professed, I voted for Cruz...here it is goes.

First off, almost all the pundits are getting it wrong...in fact, I am sick of seeing you guys post what other write - I beginning to think that there is very little original thought here in a little corner. All of these commentators are missing the point of Trump.

Trump is ascendant because the average person knows the IRS is not going away. They know that Obamacare will not be repealed, they know we are not going to war and they know we will never deport 15 million illegals, they know college will not be free. All the promises that all of these folks on both sides ring hollow. In contrast, the average person also knows that when someone says you have a small member, you defend yourself. Because that's what we did in high school. That's what we do on the beer league softball field, and hell, that's what we do in "around the water cooler".

Every politician in my lifetime claims they are version 2.0. The new Washington. The one who will break down walls and do it differently. Four years later, nothing.

Trump comes along and says, "Yeah, I bought these guys through donations when I was in the private sector because that's the way the world works."

And every average Joe who has ever had their kid cut from Little League because the coach's less-talented son played the same position, or every average Joe who was denied a pool permit but then saw their neighbor get one becuase he knows the Township Inspector, says, "You know what, I don't like it, but this guy understands the real world."

I'm not saying Trump is the right choice. I'm just saying the notion that all his supporters are dopes and racists is way off. He's not popular because of his policies. He's popular because he's not filtered and he has an opinion. I'd note that's the fundamental issue here. When you ask a politician their opinion, they go into the mental archives for position papers, they process the question, and then they give you a non-committal and slippery answer. Trump gives you an answer. Then, if he changes it two days later when he gets more information, so what. In the real world, the rest of us do what Trump does.

Now I will pick on my favorite candidate. If you watched O'Reilly interview Cruz after the debate, O'Reilly asked Cruz at least five times if he thought Trump was honest. We all know the answer to that question is "no". However, Cruz danced, and weaved, and blinked his eyes, and smiled. But he never had the balls to say "no". All the second amendment talk, and abolish the IRS talk, and support the vets talk doesn't mean crap if you can't man-up when it's time. And the average Joe knows it's pretty easy to man-up and answer the question whether you think someone is honest or not. And so this is the problem with politicians as we know them at all levels of govt.

The folks have just about seen enough and I am telling you this is a form of mini-peaceful revolution. Our problem are HUGE and they will take decades to fix and the truth is no one really knows exactly what to do.

Would love to debate this with our own original thoughts.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Unfortunately Mike, you are still in the state of denial, the second of seven stages of Trump recovery. You believe what you want to believe regardless of anything that may contradict that belief. Despite all the polls showing Trump's high unfavorable ratings and his inability to defeat Hillary, you still want to believe he can win the general election with Democrats and Independent votes.

It's your prerogative to believe what you want to believe just like believing Middle Tennessee will get an 11 seed in the NCAA Tournament if the Blue Raiders win the Conference USA Tournament. Despite the fact that Conference USA is currently ranked 22nd in the RPI Conference rankings and ranked below the Ohio Valley Conference, you want to believe Middle Tennessee will get a higher seeding than many of the teams from conferences with higher RPI rankings.

So whether it's politics or sports, some people will just believe what they want to believe and facts cannot persuade them otherwise.

Perhaps I may comment further when I have more time, but I really don't know what else I can say that hasn't already been posted. Either way, I'm not sure that it should really matter to you since I'm the only one on this forum who is not voting for Trump should he become the nominee.

http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_conf_Men.html

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

You completely missed the point of this thread...you keep demonizing the man while not understanding why he had the most support. I am not trying to get anyone to vote for Trump, I am trying to explain his support. If you don't understand the why behind the voters you will never understand how to get them to believe in your vision.

Furthermore, if Realtimerpi was right, Cruz would not have won Iowa or OK and not as big a win as he did in TX. They are just an average of polls.

This was my attempt to go deeper, beyond party lines to explain that a big part of our country is going a different direction and why.

For the record, I thought the champion of the CUSA tourney would get a 12 seed - I think it will be UAB and that is what I am basing it on. I am not sure what that has to do with this topic.

 

[MTLynn]

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

Lynn,

I "get" the video you posted, it backs up one of my big points. I am not interested in what others say, more interested in what you think. This thread was about trying to go deeper and so far I am 0 for 2.

 

[MTLynn]

Lynn,

I "get" the video you posted, it backs up one of my big points. I am not interested in what others say, more interested in what you think. This thread was about trying to go deeper and so far I am 0 for 2.

The guy in video is basicly saying what you are - Trump and Sanders are not establishment so they are getting support because of that.

I don't know what Trump would do as President but I'm confident that the estiblishment would treat him like JFK if he got too far out of line.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Mike, this is from a previous thread in which I responded to you but didn't receive a reply. Perhaps it was buried beneath other threads.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blueraider_Mike said: ↑
This is not how the process works...you guys realize you will lose the majority of the Trump vote ensuring another 4-8 years of liberals. The supreme court will be liberal for the next generation.

You all are witnessing and supporting the destruction of the Republican party...many of these name are establishment R's - guilty of not governing well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike, just to set the record straight, I've never said I won't vote for Trump if he's the nominee. So, your "you guys" and "you all" statements were hopefully not directed at me. I do think that Trump's entry into the race is causing untold damage to our party and eventually to our country as his nomination would, I believe, ensure a Hillary Clinton victory this fall (assuming, of course, she's not indicted--which I seriously doubt she will be).

Also, you mention "you guys realize you will lose the majority of the Trump vote ensuring another 4-8 years of liberals." What about the roughly 65% of Republican voters who don't support him now? Do you really think Trump could win without their support? There were roughly 4-5 million conservatives who sat out the last election--refusing to vote for Romney. This scenario could easily happen again thanks to Trump. Think about it.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

BBJ, thanks for joining in...

Trump is not causing any damage - if anything, his run is just bringing the discourse to the forefront, this discourse has been building for years. You realize the establishment hated Reagan, and they hate Cruz just as much and probably more than Trump. So the argument you make about 4-5 million sitting out is the same argument some could make for Cruz being the nominee.

I think this brings to light the diversity of the republican party...somehow we have to pull together, if we do, we win the Presidency and have a chance to influence the direction of the country. If we don't we lose, probably lose the Senate. Its that simple.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

You're welcome, my friend. Friends can agree to disagree, although I think we're largely on the same page here.

Regarding your comment "...somehow we have to pull together," I'd like your thoughts on a proposed combined Cruz/Rubio ticket. The article (below) illustrates the potential "win-win-win" scenario of such a dynamic.

Tell you what, give the article a read when you get the chance and share your thoughts. As always, your opinions/input are greatly appreciated and respected on this board.

--BBJ

Cisco Kid-Pancho 2016 (Cruz-Rubio)
Katie Kieffer | Mar 07, 2016

Choose adventure! Choose romance! Choose the Robin Hood of Washington: “Cisco Kid” Ted Cruz and his ideal sidekick “Pancho” Marco Rubio! My parents grew up watching two heroic Hispanic partners – The Cisco Kid and Pancho – fight crime in the hit Western, The Cisco Kid. My generation should encourage Rubio to join Cruz so this dynamic duo can beat Donald Trump - and then Hillary Clinton - and finally… win the White House!

Today I’ll make the case for Rubio to join Cruz. For Rubio supporters, this is Rubio’s best opportunity to influence this election. For those who want a non-Trump candidate to beat Hillary—without alienating Trump voters—a Cruz-Rubio ticket is also your best bet. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh calls a Cruz-Rubio ticket the GOP’s “smartest move.”

Like the Cisco Kid and Pancho in the Old West, Cruz and Rubio would be unstoppable partners in righting wrongs in Washington!

Cruz-Rubio Beats Hillary—And Bumps Trump

“I was a Trump fan not that long ago,” a Millennial told a reporter after last Thursday’s presidential debate in Michigan. “What happened?” asked the reporter. The Millennial answered: “He’s just like a big child.”

Indeed, Trump is proving to be a pouter who prefers pontificating on private parts over public policy.

Anticipating loud boos from Millennials, Trump bailed out of speaking at CPAC within 14 hours of bombing the Michigan debate. As I showed last week, Trump already had a major Millennial problem.


Here’s the catch: we cannot assume—as the GOP establishment does—that Trump’s core fans will abandon him en-masse. Because Trump’s base is not Millennials but folks well over forty who are motivated by fear. Trump understands his fans’ fear best and made the mistake of admitting: "I have the most loyal people… I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

Absolutely not OK. Which is why we’re strategizing.

Cruz and Trump will each show up at the national convention with a large posse of delegates. The establishment can’t force them to join Kasich or Rubio. It would be completely unjust. And a house divided against itself will not stand against Hillary.

Rubio remains 19 points behind Trump in Florida, his home state. His lone win in Minnesota was lackluster. After Super Tuesday, Cruz had 110% more delegates than Rubio. Florida is Rubio’s best—and unlikely—shot at amassing delegates.

“I am leaving the Senate. I am not running for reelection,” Rubio admitted in a recent debate. The window of time has passed for Rubio to re-run for Senate because Florida is “a big swing state in which you need to be focused on that race from day one,” says the Washington Post. So coalescing with Cruz, who espouses all the principles Rubio claims to uphold but with more traction, is Rubio’s best bet at remaining a political force. Rubio could be Vice President now and in four or eight years—when he’s still a young 48 or 52—be President.

Cruz-Rubio is a win-win-win. For your American Dream. For Rubio. And for Cruz. It’s a lose-lose-lose for flip-floppers like Hillary, Trump, and government corruption.

Pitching a Tent Bigger than Trump’s

Trump takes credit for bringing new voters into the Republican Party. The problem is, those voters were attracted to Trump’s “tell it like it is” style and his stance on immigration. And on Thursday—Trump caved on national television—showing himself to be an insider’s insider. Between Hispanics and Millennials, Cruz-Rubio will expand the tent to be ten times that of Trump’s.

When Fox News debate moderators asked Trump about immigration, the number one issue that launched him into the spotlight, Trump said: "I'm changing, I’m changing… I'm softening!"

Rubio is marred by the mess he made by partnering with the Democrats on the Gang of Eight amnesty legislation. Cruz meanwhile has been steady on immigration since 2010.

“Cruz was at an IQ factor of 85 above everyone else on that stage,” Rush Limbaugh said after the Michigan debate. “There was a flip flop. What’s on Trump’s website [on immigration] is not what he ended up saying.” It was Cruz who explained the flop for all to hear.

Ted Cruz is the first Hispanic to win an American presidential primary or caucus. Ever. And he didn’t stop with one win. He scooped up a state the size of a country—Texas—plus Iowa, Oklahoma and Trump’s fangirl Sarah Palin’s home state of Alaska.

Cruz does much better among Millennials than Rubio or Trump. Look at the exit polls in the states where we had age data coming out of Super Tuesday, Cruz won the Millennial vote in five states—and not all the same states where he won overall, showing he has a broad fan base. Rubio only won Millennials in three states and one state overall. Despite more overall wins, Trump only won the Millennial vote in three states.

There’s still a place for folks like Gov. John Kasich in politics. He could be on the Cruz-Rubio cabinet. Cruz-Rubio could also boot Janet Yellen and make Rand Paul the chair of the Federal Reserve. Dr. Ben Carson could reform the Department of Health and Human Services. All the voters who wouldn’t vote for Trump could—in good conscience and with great enthusiasm—rally around Cruz-Rubio and their Dream Team.

Over half of Americans now make under $30,000 a year. Let’s tell the Robin Hood of Washington—“Cisco Kid” Ted Cruz and partner “Pancho” Marco Rubio—to “rob” from corrupt government elites and give back to the poor the money that the government stole from them when they were middle class. Cruz-Rubio 2016 for the win!

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

I would support it...I think Rubio has learned his lesson on governing. I look at it this way, we need FL, OH and VA. We win these three and we win the Presidency. Kasich may be the better choice, OH has to turn red.

In the general, Rubio has "likeability" and this matters. Both of them being Hispanic is also very helpful.

Ultimately, we need the Trump voters, hoping for a unified front.

 

[TheBigBluePeach]

Rubio/Cruz ticket would be better.

 

[TeKEraider]

I honestly don't understand why Kasich doesn't get more of a look from republicans. They have never won an election without carrying Ohio. You have a popular Ohio governor that has real budget credentials at a federal level. He is not on the crazy train like Cruz or Trump. He is not a religious fanatic. As D I wouldn't mind him winning which means he has zero chance. I liked Huntsman in 12 and he couldn't get a look from the R's. I believe if Huntsman had been the nominee he would be president right now.

Here is the thing. Most D's aren't enthused by our choices. I am not. The only thing, I think, that will drive our turnout will be a Trump or Cruz on the opposite side. If Kasich were there I could see myself and many others sitting this out. If it's Trump or Cruz we will be motivated to keep them out. I swear it's like republicans don't want to win.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

The R's are tired of the same old Washington, they really want reform. Kasich may end up being a VP pick. I like him. But he is seen as more establishment.

 

[RandallThomason]

The best unity ticket for the GOP is Rubio/Cruz or Cruz/Rubio. If Rubio wins Florida, I think he has a real shot to go on a run and win the nomination. If he doesn't win Florida, he should drop out and endorse Cruz and wait to be named Cruz's VP. Whoever is at the top of the ticket (I pray it won't be Trump), they will need the other candidate to help fill in the gaps where they are weak. Cruz would help Rubio win over the conservatives that felt betrayed by Rubio's immigration moves, and Rubio would help Cruz be more acceptable to mainstream urban and suburban GOP voters.

Personally, I think the most electable ticket is Rubio at the top with Cruz as VP. I am skeptical that Cruz at the top of the ticket can cause any states that Obama won in 2012 to flip from blue to red. He is simply not strong enough with non-evangelical voters in my opinion. With Rubio at the top of the ticket, I think the GOP would have a great shot in Virginia, Ohio, and obviously Florida.

This is not a purity contest for me. This is about making sure the far left doesn't wreck the Supreme Court for the next generation. A President Rubio would be the most conservative leader the country has had since Reagan and probably Coolidge before that. On top of that, he has broad enough strength and likability that he can win a general election.

 

[MTLynn]

good story

 

[MTLynn]

Jean-Claude Van Damme: Rockefeller & Rothschild Families Won’t Let Trump Win
Actor says Trump is the only anti-globalist candidate

Jean-Claude Van Damme sensationally told a French political show that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families won’t let Donald Trump win the presidency because he is an anti-globalist candidate.

Appearing on Le Grand Journal, the Belgian actor was keen to express that he was “aware” of who was really shaping the US presidential election race.

Speaking about Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, Van Damme asserted, “Well, they are not going to win”.

“You still have the Rockefeller, people like the Rothschild, those big families that dominate continents….these are families that rise in 1827, a family with five sons that expands, it’s above everything we’re talking (about) tonight,” stated the actor.

He went on to make a distinction between “lobbyists” that control the other candidates and “people like Donald Trump,” who is self-funded.

“If I myself have goods and worked all my life, for my family, my friends, for my country, where I pay my taxes, what he wants first in my opinion is to protect his interests, whereas someone who works for free is someone dangerous,” remarked Van Damme.

He then went on to assert that “globalists” were the problem and that “to get out of globalism is to leave the world alone”.

Some of the other participants in the debate looked stunned that Van Damme had brought up the topic.

 

[MTLynn]

 

[MTLynn]

 

[MTLynn]

View embedded media

Can Trump Get Sanders’ Voters?
by Kevin Jackson | Mar 31, 2016

The Democrats are in disarray, and the media isn’t discussing it much. Despite beating Sanders handily with the black vote, Hillary Clinton doesn’t resonate with blacks. She’s nowhere close to what Obama got in either election cycle. But it gets worse. For the most port, Sanders voters don’t like Hillary Clinton at all.

As reported by the Washington Post, Sanders voters may be more inclined to vote for Trump, than Clinton:

It’s rare for a populist candidate to go far in presidential politics. It’s almost unheard of for two of them to advance as far, in the same year, as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have. Trump remains the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Sanders still has a shot at the Democratic one. Their successes share some common themes, which are fueling speculation that populist voters from the left and right might come together to back a single candidate come November, or even form their own political party in the years to come.

The idea is that anger at Wall Street, stagnating middle-class wages, international trade agreements, the influence of rich donors in political campaigns and, most of all, American political elites, will bring millions of blue-collar voters into an unlikely alliance.

Perhaps they will support Trump against Hillary Clinton in the fall, or perhaps, as the liberal former Labor Secretary Robert Reich spelled out last week in an op-ed, they will revolt against both parties in the next presidential race.

The revolt against the Republican establishment is in full swing. So the only revolt left is on the Left.
Clinton will try to get mileage out of Trump’s misstep on women, but Cruz is waiting in the wings. Though Cruz may not get the Sanders’ voter bloc, there is still bad news for Clinton.
By the end of it all, Cruz could look very tame in comparison to Trump, and they share many of the same views. Cruz is more measured in his strategies, and like Trump he won’t be afraid to challenge Clinton on her record.
Either way, as uber Leftist Susan Sarandon recently suggested, many Sanders supporters will likely stay home, if Clinton is their choice.

 

[MTLynn]

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

If Trump becomes the nominee, he will lose in a landslide that will include the nation's most conservative state, Utah. And if that happens, I will post the following message:

Fool

Fool

Pathetic loser

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

He may lose but you have no idea how he will do. Nobody saw him coming. You can't explain why so many conservatives are voting for him other than they are sell outs. Hate him all you want but he has chanced the game. Cruz is my favorite and he has played small ball like all conservatives have - stump speech and create a solid ground game. If you get the chance try to listen to the discussion Rush had about this today. He discussed a memo put out by an insider in the Cruz camp that explained why Trump has done so well. It's a facinationg opinion.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

"He may lose but you have no idea how he will do." Really? Read the following article and tell me Trump has a chance to win.

The Die-Hard Republicans Who Say #NeverTrump

Over the past week, as it’s begun to sink in that -- no foolin’ -- Donald Trump might really be the nominee, I began to notice a trend among family and friends who are stalwart Republicans. These are people who consistently vote, and consistently vote (R) straight down the line. And they are tortured because they cannot bring themselves to vote for the Republican nominee this year, if the Republican nominee is Trump.

“She’s beside herself,” my mother said of a near relation, who is apparently seriously considering voting for a Democrat for the first time. I wanted to understand this phenomenon better. I asked on Twitter whether this was a real thing, just as the hashtag #NeverTrump began trending. And I got an earful. So I invited lifelong Republicans who had decided that they couldn’t vote for Trump in the general, even if he got the nomination, to tell me their stories. Hundreds of e-mails poured in, and are still arriving. They're informative.

What surprised me? First, the sheer number of people who sat down and composed lengthy e-mails on a weekend.

Second, the passion they showed. These people are not quietly concerned about Trump. They are appalled, repulsed, afraid and dismayed that their party could have let this happen. They wrote in the strongest possible language, and many were adamant that they would not stay home on Election Day, but in fact would vote for Hillary Clinton in the general and perhaps leave the Republican Party for good.

Third was the sheer breadth. I got everything from college students to Midwestern farmers to military intelligence officers to former officials in Republican administrations, one of whom said he would “tattoo #NeverTrump” on a rather delicate part of his anatomy if it would keep Donald J. Trump from becoming the nominee. They were from all segments of the party -- urban professionals, yes, but also stalwart evangelicals, neoconservatives, libertarians, Tea Partiers, the whole patchwork of ideological groups of which the Republican coalition is made.

Fourth was what they didn’t say. Some people talked about economic liberty issues, like taxes, or Obamacare, but that was a minority. “Lack of substance” was another minor issue -- often present, but never alone.

The main arguments were his authoritarianism, his lack of any principle besides the further aggrandizement of one Donald J. Trump, his racism and misogyny, and his erratic behavior, which led a whole lot of people to write that they were afraid to have him anywhere within a thousand miles of the nuclear launch codes.

I spent Sunday chopping e-mails up into quotes and organizing them by theme. They are excerpted below, with minor edits for clarity, and the whole collection is here (anonymized, with any specific identifiers stripped out). You can see for yourself what people are saying about their decision. Maybe you'll see some themes I did not. Please join the conversation in a comment below.

Meanwhile, here is what I learned from asking #NeverTrump folks what they’re thinking.

They’re party stalwarts.

That’s not surprising: I specified lifelong Republicans, not swing voters. Most of the people were just that. Oh, maybe they had a youthful fling with a Democrat or two, but they married the GOP, and they’ve been reliably pulling that lever for the bulk of their adult lives. Some have done much more than that: served in Republican administrations, worked for Republican campaigns, donated and volunteered for their party.

“I’ve been involved in politics for almost as long as I can remember.… Throughout the years, I had the opportunity to meet and campaign for a number of candidates…. I’m the first to admit that they all had flaws, and some were less conservative than I, but I never met or worked for one who wasn’t a patriot. Yes, we disagreed, but never did I feel that these disagreements were personal or that they conveyed a lack of respect for our fellow Americans. Far from it. That changed with Donald Trump.”

A former conservative columnist for his college paper wrote: “I voted for a Republican congressional candidate who was later convicted of using taxpayer money to buy sex toys. I voted for a Republican congressman who was on his deathbed. I voted for W even though I was mad at him over the Iraq war. I voted for McCain even though I thought his health-care and cap-and-trade plans would be disastrous. I voted for Romney even though I disliked his Mormonism and his creation of Romneycare. But I can’t bring myself to vote for Trump.”

“I'm more than a voter, I'm also a donor and volunteer. I've written $2,000 checks for four Republicans (John McCain+ 3 others) and volunteered for those same campaigns. I'm proud of helping to elect Hawaii’s only Republican Governor Linda Lingle.”

“Demo: White Male, Age 40
Residence: Burke, VA (Fairfax County)
Occupation: Marine Corps Officer

Voted in all levels of elections since 1995 in several starts. Voted in EVERY SINGLE election. Even obscure ones. While deployed in Iraq, didn't matter. From city council, county commissioner, state representative, all the way up the chain, always voted straight Republican. Of the original 17 Republican candidates from July 2015, I'd vote for any of the other 16. Just #NEVERTRUMP.”

“Despite living in a blue state and knowing that each and every presidential election, the polls would close at 8 p.m. and the networks would immediately call Massachusetts for whoever the Democratic candidate was, I have voted for the Republican candidate. I have been a loyal member of this party, even serving a brief period as a city committee member in my town. Despite all this, there is no way I would ever vote for Donald Trump.”

They understand that refusing to vote for Trump means that a Democrat will probably win.

Most were quite clear that they were effectively casting, at the very least, a half vote for Clinton or Bernie Sanders. They are not only at peace with that; many expressed an affirmative preference for Clinton over Trump, even though most of them also noted that they hate Clinton.

“I don't think I could ever vote for her, but given a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as president, I would much rather see Clinton. And I say that even though I consider her utterly unprincipled.”

“I think a Donald Trump nomination would destroy the conservative cause. I think Hillary Clinton in the White House would be a disaster, but is far preferable to Trump. What a sad moment for the GOP.”

“I abhor the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, but I have to choose the lesser of two evils. Conservatism survived FDR; we'll survive Clinton. Will we survive the transformation of the GOP into an ethnic nationalist party?”

Many will actually consider voting for a Democrat, rather than just staying home.

This is not just base demotivation: a lot of people, perhaps half or more, said they would consider voting for Clinton or Sanders if Trump was close to winning. A few said they’d volunteer or give money to them if necessary.

“I agree with Donald Trump on virtually nothing and don't consider him a Republican. Not only won't I vote for him in a general election, but I'll vote for either Hillary or Sanders and will do so without a tad of guilt of voting for a Democrat. For that matter, if the election looks close, I'll even consider following Trump's example and donating money to Hillary. … As Americans, I think we have a moral obligation to choose between the lesser of two evils … or as Churchill said: ‘If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.’ ”

“I assume Clinton would crush Trump in a landslide, but if it is actually close, I will not vote third party. I will instead get blackout drunk, hold my nose, and vote for Hillary.”

“I would not only vote for the Democrat if Trump wins the GOP nomination, I would volunteer for the Democratic candidate.”

“I could not ever have fathomed a situation where I would vote for a Democrat president, especially not HRC. However, the impossible has happened … he has forced me to consider voting for a Clinton.”

They understand that a Democratic win means that the Supreme Court will flip liberal, and probably stay that way for a while.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

continued:

Hugh Hewitt, a lawyer and a talk-radio host, has made the case that Republicans should rally behind Trump just because of the importance of the Supreme Court. A lot of people noted this argument, and said they understood it. A few mentioned him by name. But they said that Trump's other drawbacks were simply too great to tolerate, even for the sake of the Supreme Court. Lawyers and abortion opponents were particularly likely to say that the Supreme Court was their top issue, and as horrified as they were by the prospect of a liberal court, they still couldn’t vote for Trump.

A former Republican Justice Department official wrote “I fully understand the disaster (from my political/philosophical perspective) of an HRC presidency, particularly on the court (but also in many other areas). But I'll not vote for prez, or vote third party, before voting for Trump.”

Others echoed this sentiment:

“As an attorney, I did not think I would find an issue more important to me than the Supreme Court, but this is it. I could not live with myself if I voted for Donald Trump, nor will I put myself in the position of having to explain such a vote, even if it means the court is lost for a generation. Being in the wilderness, politically speaking, is preferable to being complicit in any way in the election of Donald Trump, and with it the destruction of the party I have supported my entire adult life.”

“I get why Hugh Hewitt says Republicans must support the GOP nominee even it is Trump because of the Supreme Court. But Trump's demagoguery, sexism, and disdain for knowledge and substance are anathema to me. He's radioactive to me. It overwhelms Hugh's narrow/tactical argument about the Supreme Court. Voting for Trump would feel like stabbing myself -- or someone or something (my country) I care about”

“I won't vote for him. Ever. Hillary can have the White House. She can nominate 3 Scotus candidates. And I hate that idea more than almost anything. But Trump can't be trusted. With anything. I will not fall in line. I will not ever vote for him. Ever.”

“Despite the vacancy on the Supreme Court I will not vote for president in this election if Trump is the GOP candidate. He is a buffoon, has no class & is not conservative. If Hillary is elected I think the republic will survive. If Trump is elected I have my doubts that it will.”

They think the GOP is better off losing the election than winning it with Trump at the helm.

Yes, they really do understand their party will lose. And they think that’s better for the party than having it taken over by Trump.

“It would be better for the Republicans to go down in flames, thus ending the Trumpian moment, rather than hoping for scraps from his table.”

“I'm concerned Trump's nomination would split the GOP apart (like the Grand Canyon) and his inevitable, massive loss could destroy the GOP (then no more Supreme Court appointments, ever?). … Better to lose one election or third party or something, even at the risk of the Supreme Court, and live to fight another day, than tolerate radioactive Trump -- and through the contact, become radioactive ourselves and implode into oblivion.”

“I fully feel that even a single four-year term by either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would be disastrous to the fundamentals and principles this nation was founded on. But a Donald Trump administration would be equally, if not more, disastrous. The difference is that with Donald Trump, conservatives and the Republican Party would be shackled to the mess created, bound at least by association to whatever tyranny he imposes, whatever disastrous policy he enacts on a whim, and whatever hateful, bigoted rhetoric follows in his wake by the alarming number of his followers I would never have imagined still exist in America today.”

Why are they so adamant? People cited a lot of issues, and they often overlap. I divided them into broad baskets, but they’re not exclusive. People frequently talked about “character” issues like his bullying manner in the same sentence as his misogyny and racism. The following are the major issues:

They question his character and judgment.

“It’s not just that he’s vain, conceited and a braggart. Or that he’s prone to petty put downs, schoolyard taunts, cruel mockery and just plain rudeness. It is that he embodies virtually everything I strive to teach my young sons not to be and not to emulate.

• That being wealthy makes one morally superior.
• That material wealth is a measure of a man’s true worth.
• That boasting about sexual conquests is something to be admired or cheered.
• That every challenge to your ideas should be met not with a sound argument about the idea, but with smears, insults and put downs about the person uttering the disagreement.
• That legitimate challenges to your ideas should be met with threats of financial ruin or lawsuits.
• That the force of government should be wielded by the wealthy against the weak.
• That your failures or lack of success must always be attributed not to your lack of intelligence or initiative, but to someone else getting something that’s rightfully yours.”

Another writer, who understood why people are angry at the policy establishment and Washington elites more generally, added “I personally am not willing to sacrifice my country and more specifically the dignity of the office that represents it, just to make a point.”

“It's not just that I don't think he's conservative. It's that as president I think he'd be quite capable of doing anything, except governing reasonably well.”

“It may be true that the country I love and fought for has gone over the cliff and is willing to elect a narcissistic con-man as president, but I will never, under any circumstances, put my name to its death warrant.”

More specifically, here’s what they don’t like:

They think he's a racist, or panders to racists.

You’d be surprised to hear it, if you just read liberal columnists talking about how the Republican Party is all white identity politics and pandering to rich people, but this showed up over … and over … and over. Libertarians complained about it. Evangelicals complained about it. Born-and-bred Southern Republicans complained about it. People who said they favored much tighter immigration restrictions complained about it. And at least half of these e-mails were writtenbefore he went on Jake Tapper’s show and refused to disavow David Duke and the KKK.

“I am a loyal party man, but I will not be taken hostage by a racist xenophobe. If it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton I will vote my conscience.”

“Trump's embrace of identity politics is a betrayal of a party that stood for judging individuals on the basis of their merit.”

“He has mocked a great war hero like John McCain as well as those with a physical handicap. He is also a racist that brings out the worst in people. David Duke the former grand wizard of the KKK has endorsed him and white supremacist supporters are making robo-calls that are extremely racist. … We need a leader that will unite us not one that brings out the worst elements of our society. The brave men and women of this country fought the Nazis during WW II to protect our rights and now there are those that are ready to back a man who is akin to Hitler himself.”

“My grandfather and great-grandfather were white Republicans in Alabama in an era when that simple fact would get the Klan on your lawn. They despised George Wallace. I see more than a little of old Jumpin’ George (as we called him when I was in grade school), and his remarkable ability to pander to the lowest common denominator, in Trump.”

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

continued:

They think he's misogynistic.

It wasn’t just his references to Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle. It was everything. One person wrote “My mom's story is what I really want to share. She is a Pentecostal Sunday school teacher who hates his amorality. She can't stand his attacks on McCain because of her respect for military (her brother was Marine/served in Iraq). But more than anything, the air of misogyny he puffs out every time he speaks brings back to her mind all of the dismissive men she has toiled under and been passed over during her career.”

Evangelicals, men and women both, hit this note particularly hard. “He has bragged numerous times about having sexual affairs with married women. He is on his third marriage, to a woman who made a career out of objectifying her own body. … His pandering attempt to sell himself as a Christian is disgraceful and demeaning.”

“I refuse to be a member of a party where Donald Trump -- an opponent of limited government, a misogynist who proclaims to be a Christian in one breath but openly brags about having sex with married women in the next, a person who surrounds himself solely with yes-men -- is the nominee.”

“I despise the way he talks about and treats women and minorities and really anyone who dares oppose him. He claims to be a Christian but is clearly ignorant of the teachings of Christ.”

They think he lacks substance on policy.

“Oftentimes when asked about a issue, he talks about polls and his standing in the race rather than explain his position. He's clearly more concerned with running the race rather than what he'll do in office.”

“What our party, and I believe our nation, needs is someone who can demonstrate the true nature of conservatism and can communicate that to the American people; Donald Trump does neither of these. He can't effectively explain ANY conservative position: when he has to it's a 10-second soundblip: 'We're gonna build a wall,' 'I read my Bible every day,' 'No one's gonna take your guns,' and so on. When pressed on any conservative position he is unable to get beyond these short sound bites. How do you bring nonparty members to our side if you can't explain WHY you believe what you believe?”

“I don't know if Mr. Trump is genuinely unintelligent or merely plays that character, but either way, it's who he is in form if not also function. … And how will this man react in a crisis should Austin become the next Paris or 2017 the next 2011? This man who does so little debate prep he can't offer any specifics other than to promise he'll be surrounded by the best people; people he can't name because he apparently hasn't even considered yet. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to place our country and its national security in the hands of ... who exactly? Surely not just recipients of his nepotism, right?”

They see him as an unprincipled con man.

So many people touched on this in some way. “Unprincipled,” “amoral,” “self-promoting,” “Con man." They think that he’s using the Republican Party for his own purposes, and that in the end, like most marks, the voters will be left with less than they had before. One missive summed up most of these threads of argument:

“I will never vote for Donald Trump. I do not for an instant believe he is a conservative. I don't know if he is a liberal either. ... He is a chameleon that changes color as needed, adapting to whatever environment he is in in order to benefit himself. He has never, once, sacrificed his own wealth or power in order to further the common good; it is always about enriching himself or making himself more powerful.”

A small fraction of the other, similar complaints:

“At the very least I know Clinton will do what she thinks is best for this country. I cannot say the same about Trump.”

“He has no moral compass and no abiding principles save for self-promotion.”

“My wife thinks he's a horrible racist. I think he's a salesman who doesn't believe a word of the conservative beliefs he's spouting.”

“He is an amoral, corrupt, grifting, vulgar, adolescent authoritarian bully; void of any substance.”

And when it came to how he’d govern:

Lots of people cited individual issues, from abortion and religious liberty, to guns, to economic liberty. His flip-flopping on Planned Parenthood came in for a lot of criticism, both because of what it said about his character, and because of what it signals for abortion opponents if he won the presidency. But overwhelmingly, a handful of “big picture” problems predominated.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

continued:

He's seen as authoritarian.

When talk turned to how he’d govern, this was Issue No. 1. My correspondents genuinely feared that his idea of governing lay somewhere between third-world dictator and outright fascist. Many expressed hope that American institutions would stop the worst of his impulses. But they weren’t willing to gamble.

“I am convinced that Donald Trump is the antithesis of everything that the Founders stood for. I do not believe that such an egomaniac would acquiesce when Congress refused to pass his preferred laws. I fear he would ignore Supreme Court decisions, and pack the court with judges who disregard the Constitution's original intent and disfavor limited government -- like his sister, a sitting federal judge.”

“A Trump presidency would mean a huge congressional win for Democrats in two years. After that, Donald Trump as president would lead to executive overreach on steroids. He would not follow the Constitution, and that's bad for the country.”

“My gut says Trump is an egotistical maniac who would love nothing more than to be a dictator and truly believes he has some mythical abilities and intelligence that other people don't have that will enable him to do whatever he wants. I am scared more of his personality as a president and what he would try to do to and in the office of president than I am of the policies of HRC as a candidate.”

“I have seen and lived through Peron and other demagogues (Cristina Kirchner the most recent). They foster envy and hatred. Undermine the foundations of healthy society in countless ways. Trump is one of them.”

“A man prone to this type of petty insults and overreactions, who mocks the physically disabled and threatens to use our legal process (and presumably the power of the presidency) to go after the press and his political opponents, is more fit for a third-world dictatorship than the United States.”

“I think he may be a fascist, and I don't say that lightly.”

They don’t trust him with foreign policy.

This was another huge issue for people, since this is one area where you can’t just cross your fingers and count on Congress to restrain the president. It came mostly in two flavors: Trump’s big mouth will get us into a stupid war, and someone of Trump’s demonstrated erratic behavior, enormous ego and petty vindictiveness should not be allowed anywhere near the nuclear launch codes. Many people, of course, worried about both.

Said a former member of the military: “As an intel analyst in Afghanistan, I attended meetings with high-ranking … officials regarding security, US-AFG relations, and ousting of the Taliban. I know from this experience that knowing when to keep your mouth shut is of paramount importance when it comes to foreign policy. Loose lips show weakness.”

Wrote someone who enlisted after 9/11: “I would point you to General Hayden's recent remarks that many in the military would have to consider disobeying orders from Trump as commander in chief. Honestly, if he were elected I would have to consider not re-enlisting; I had intended to get to 30 years. America would be the pariah of the international community instead of its linchpin.”

“I cannot be a party to entrusting the lives of our service men and women to someone who has no moral compass and a vengeful ego.”

“I sincerely don't believe he has the temperament to be commander in chief. He can be outfitted with the best advisers (establishment or otherwise) but I think his personality issues would negate any benefit. There is no bankruptcy court equivalent for military actions.”

“POTUS has power to start a nuclear war. Trump is impulsive, thin skinned, irrational and vindictive. Putting nuclear launch codes in his hands would be only thing worse than putting Hillary back in the WH.”

They believe he's a crypto-liberal.

Contra the folks who said it was all just an unprincipled scam, there were some folks who thought that somewhere under Trump’s skin, there was a liberal itching to get out.

“I don't care what Trump's voter registration says, he's not a Republican.”

“When I see Donald Trump, I see a Democrat.”

This is not exactly the reason that they won’t vote for him in the general, mostly; rather, it’s the reason they are unmoved by one of the strongest arguments for voting for him: that even if he’s terrible in all the abovementioned ways, he’d still deliver on at least a few conservative priorities. Trump, they said, would govern as a liberal -- only it would be worse, because he’d be a liberal who would hurt the Republican Party as well as the country.

“I believe he is a liberal and always has been. He is dragging the party to the left and wiping out the conservative movement in the process.”

“We'd be sending a message to ‘Washington elites’ but not the right one.”

This probably summed up the sentiment best: “The point is, Donald Trump is the repudiation of what I believe in, coming from within the party that I have worked for. His victory would be worse than Barack Obama's because Trump would have captured the opposition to progressivism within this country. There would be no vessel for conservatism within the political process.”

And then talk turned to what happens after the primary, if Trump wins the nomination. I can’t say that there were a lot of great, practical suggestions.

“Plan B: Impeach both Trump and whoever he selects as VP so that Paul Ryan can be president.”

Another looked northward: “I've always laughed at the Democrats who swore they'd move to Canada if this or that Republican was elected. But at this point I do understand the feeling.”

A third isn’t going to get mad; they’re going to get even: “Every time someone endorses Trump, I don't get angry. I just add it to the list and repeat it over and over, like Arya Stark...

The Mountain
Ann Coulter
Cersei Lannister
Chris Christie
Sheriff Joe....”

But a lot of folks quite seriously said they’d leave the party.

This was what surprised me most about the whole exercise. I’d expected people to say they’d sit out the election; I didn’t expect that around a dozen would say that if Trump was the nominee, they would change their registration.

“He is not committed to the good of this country, nor to the Republican Party. If he's the Republican Party, then I am no longer a Republican. If he's nominated, I leave the party.”

“I’m a 30-year-old lifelong Republican, but I will stay home if he wins. Can’t vote for him, can’t vote for Hillary, sure can’t vote for Sanders -- can’t vote. And even beyond that, if the GOP morphs into a party of authoritarian nationalist populists, I’m out. I’m comfortable becoming the political equivalent of a cicada, hibernating for 17 years until the country is ready to elect for a constitutionalist again.”

“I, along with many others, will leave the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, of Teddy Roosevelt, of Dwight Eisenhower, and yes of Ronald Reagan. Because it will no longer be their party, and it will no longer be my party. It will be Donald Trump's party. And that, I will never support.”

And a couple of people did look on the bright side.

“The one positive to Trump is -- at least for me -- he has been like a controlled fire, burning away the hypocritical 'super conservatives' who have done nothing but demand purity, and now, if not endorsing him, constantly give him cover. Feels good to not have to defend them anymore.”

“Perhaps the only benefit of a Trump presidency is he might goose Congress to recover some of the legislative responsibility they've allowed to osmose to the presidency over the past century and a half.”

Others were ready to head for the hills.

“I like the developing WWII metaphors: ‘Vichy’ and ‘Quislings’ for the Trump enablers. Vive La Resistance!”

“If it comes down to resistance against a fascist-occupied Vichy GOP, vive La Resistance! I'll be first in line to join the Free GOP in exile”

And then there were the people who just wanted it all to be over.

“The damage that the party has allowed him to do to the Republican brand is going to be long lasting. At this point, like many, I can only hope for the sweet meteor of death to end it all.”

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-29/the-die-hard-republicans-who-say-nevertrump

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

I am not going to read all of that. Someone has moved there cheese.

Have one of these authors explain where Trump came from and then I will listen to their predictions. Your trusting someone that is predicting he will lose when they NEVER predicted his rise.

How are the experts now?

We are going to fail to learn from all of this, again.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Poll: 19% Of Republicans Will Vote For Hillary Over Trump, 40% Will Never Vote Trump

We have heard a lot about the #NeverTrump movement which was started by conservatives who will never be able to justify voting for Trump.

It made sense in the beginning. A lot of Trump’s positions in the past don’t jive with the small government principles of conservatism and there were plenty of other candidates in the race who were better in that regard.

Now, with only three candidates left and only one that can mathematically clinch the nomination things have changed a little bit.

However, according to a recent poll, 40% of Republican voters still say they will never vote for Trump and almost 20% would rather vote for Hillary.

From Weasel Zippers via Politics USA:

A new Suffolk University poll has found that 19% of Republicans say they will support Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination.

The poll contained some numbers that should terrify Republicans. 40% of Republicans polled said that they would not support the party’s nominee if Donald Trump wins. 25% of the anti-Trump Republican vote would consider voting for a third party candidate. 19% of the never Trump Republicans would vote for Hillary Clinton, and 18% would stay home and not vote at all. By gender, 10% of men, and 9% of Republican women would vote for Clinton over Trump. 18% of very likely Republican general election voters would support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

These numbers provide just a hint of the potential devastation that nominating Donald Trump could bring to the Republican Party. If Trump’s disapproval ratings continue to climb, it is possible that he could lose half of the Republican electorate. Trump was known by 99% of the voters that were polled, so it is not likely that any kind of image makeover will be effective when he is already universally known.

http://www.youngcons.com/poll-19-of...-hillary-over-trump-40-will-never-vote-trump/

____________________________________________________________________________________

Yet, Hannity and O'Reilly keep touting their boy every night on their shows totally aloof of the fact Trump can't possibly win the general election. Idiots, both of them!

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Poll: 19% Of Republicans Will Vote For Hillary Over Trump, 40% Will Never Vote Trump

We have heard a lot about the #NeverTrump movement which was started by conservatives who will never be able to justify voting for Trump.

It made sense in the beginning. A lot of Trump’s positions in the past don’t jive with the small government principles of conservatism and there were plenty of other candidates in the race who were better in that regard.

Now, with only three candidates left and only one that can mathematically clinch the nomination things have changed a little bit.

However, according to a recent poll, 40% of Republican voters still say they will never vote for Trump and almost 20% would rather vote for Hillary.

From Weasel Zippers via Politics USA:

A new Suffolk University poll has found that 19% of Republicans say they will support Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination.

The poll contained some numbers that should terrify Republicans. 40% of Republicans polled said that they would not support the party’s nominee if Donald Trump wins. 25% of the anti-Trump Republican vote would consider voting for a third party candidate. 19% of the never Trump Republicans would vote for Hillary Clinton, and 18% would stay home and not vote at all. By gender, 10% of men, and 9% of Republican women would vote for Clinton over Trump. 18% of very likely Republican general election voters would support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

These numbers provide just a hint of the potential devastation that nominating Donald Trump could bring to the Republican Party. If Trump’s disapproval ratings continue to climb, it is possible that he could lose half of the Republican electorate. Trump was known by 99% of the voters that were polled, so it is not likely that any kind of image makeover will be effective when he is already universally known.

http://www.youngcons.com/poll-19-of...-hillary-over-trump-40-will-never-vote-trump/

____________________________________________________________________________________

Yet, Hannity and O'Reilly keep touting their boy every night on their shows totally aloof of the fact Trump can't possibly win the general election. Idiots, both of them!

Flash, we can add Rush to that list, as well.

Yes sir, add me to that 40% club that will never vote Trump. I believe the man's a morally depraved pervert.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

Flash and BBJ.

How much of the country do you think will never vote Cruz?

Meanwhile, all of these pieces are not converting one new Cruz supporter.

Rush, really - he is on the hit list? I just can't take you guys seriously if your going to throw everyone under the bus who the ideologues say are giving Trump cover all the time. Your backing yourself into a corner.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Flash and BBJ.

How much of the country do you think will never vote Cruz?

Meanwhile, all of these pieces are not converting one new Cruz supporter.

Rush, really - he is on the hit list? I just can't take you guys seriously if your going to throw everyone under the bus who the ideologues say are giving Trump cover all the time. Your backing yourself into a corner.

"How much of the country do you think will never vote Cruz"?

Mike, you lent criticism to a previous post by asking how those who predict Trump's demise couldn't predict his ascendancy. So, I doubt my answer would satisfy you.

"Meanwhile, all of these pieces are not converting one new Cruz supporter."

Mike, I thought this a forum for a handful of "otherwise" Blue Raider fans to share their thoughts, opinions, interesting articles, etc.? I wasn't aware that I, nor anyone else, were here to "convert." I honestly doubt any of us could, or would, "convert" anyone--even if we tried.

"Rush, really - he is on the hit list"?

Do you, or have you, listened to Rush very much in the past 6-8 months? As someone who used to listen to him daily (and have been since the late '80's), I began to notice his tone and demeanor change last summer (when the GOP primary campaign began in earnest). I began to notice how Rush--who used to be the very "Voice of Conservatism"-- slowly but surely began to morph into a Trump apologist. No matter what Trump said or did, Rush had an "explanation" for it--rather than any condemnation of it. So, rather than defend conservatism, Rush chose the low road to become a Trump apologist.

And, if you think it's just Flash and I who have noticed this--you're wrong. I've read where many formerly staunch Rush listeners have now turned him off. They're simply fed up with the daily Trump apologies and Trump propaganda that he espouses.

"I just can't take you guys seriously if your going to throw everyone under the bus who the ideologues say are giving Trump cover all the time."

Real sorry to hear you say that, Mike. I've never been anything but kind and respectful of your posts. In fact, I've even been very complimentary of them. However, to make the comment toward Flash and I that you can't take us "seriously," is uncalled for and pretty pathetic.

Just to set the record straight, I don't need an "ideologue" to tell me what or how to think, and I don't believe Flash does either. If we no longer decide to listen to someone such as Rush, or Hannity, or Laura Ingraham...it's because we're fed-up with their non-stop Trump love-fest. It has absolutely nothing to do with whatever some "ideologue" had to say about it.

"You're backing yourself into a corner."

If I've "backed myself into a corner," as you say, then my corner is one that stands for God, religious freedom, the Constitution, capitalism, a strong military, state's rights, and private property rights. Go ahead and paint me in that corner. I'll very gladly stay right there.

 

[RaiderDawg78]

Although I said I would never post in this forum again, this seems like an interesting thread (at least with the ignore feature on for 2 posters).

To your point Mike - I have to admit I am completely shocked how well Trump has done, especially with a lot of conservatives. I was at a gathering with 5 couples at the beginning of the primaries. I don't think the 5 women present could have named any candidate other than Trump or Hillary; they just don't follow politics. Within 30 minutes, all 5 women had decided they do not like Cruz. They could not have told you a single Cruz policy at the time, they just did not like the look,sound, or personality of the man. The other thing I noticed, is that 3 men, Christian, NRA member, long-time GOP members liked Trump for exactly the points you have made. I was very surprised, I thought for sure it was going to be Cruz party, but of the 10 people there, the women hated Cruz, 3 of the 5 men were Trump guys, & 2 of the other guys (myself included) were undecided at the time. I bet Trump got 6 of 10 votes from a group that I would have thought he had ZERO chance of getting 1 vote from.

That whole thing to say, Trump has tapped into something, an anger with anyone that is a politician, and it he is riding that wave of emotion. I agree with all your points above. I keep waiting on the Trump train to crash, but he keeps surprising me.

 

[MTLynn]

That whole thing to say, Trump has tapped into something, an anger with anyone that is a politician, and it he is riding that wave of emotion.

Most people let emotion cloud their judgment. No logic at all.

It's why you have people who always vote along party lines no matter who the party nominates.

 

[RaiderDawg78]

Lynn,

I agree 100%. An old Raiderdawg household saying, "When men get emotional, they get stupid." You need to be able to take emotion out of decisions & be able to think not just from your POV, but also try to see other POVs to be able to make sound decisions.