Slashdot Mirror
Ted Cruz Drops Out Of The Republican Presidential Race (washingtonpost.com)
rmdingler writes: Ted Cruz drops out of the presidential race after losing in Indiana. Donald Trump has become the presumptive nominee before Hillary has locked things up versus Bernie. This is huge. Cruz's decision to drop out came after losing significantly to Trump in the Indiana primary. "I said I would continue on as long as there is a viable path to victory. Tonight I'm sorry to say, it appears that path has been foreclosed," Cruz told a small group of supporters Tuesday night. "Together we left it all on the field in Indiana. We gave it everything we got, but the voters chose another path." He said he would "continue to fight for liberty," but did not say whether or not he would support Trump as the nominee. The exit comes soon after he announced former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina as his running mate in a desperate move to keep his candidacy afloat.
R. Daneel Olivaw for President!
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Namely "Cruz for President"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Considering how he now has to lay off his entire campaign staff, picking Carly Fiorina as his running mate looks more and more like a brilliant decision!
Someone's God lied to them......
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
I wouldn't say "Huge". I'd say a %$%^$ nightmare. Except that it may have done some good in showing the Republican party and their deep-pocket funders like the Koch brothers where a race to the bottom eventually gets them.
Where does this take us? Trump is going to score well in conservative White districts, and Clinton (yes, I like Sanders, but he doesn't have the delegates) is going to score well enough to beat him with less conservative Whites and everyone else. I don't know if enough people would have voted for Clinton without someone who inspires people to vote against him like Trump. But even people who would in another situation never have voted for Clinton will cast votes against Trump. Clinton just got handed the White House. Game over.
What really troubles me is what happens after the election. 40 years of anti-intellectualism and pandering to prejudice and we got a significant part of the country voting for someone who really would not have been good for the country. The historical parallels are obvious. What do we do now?
Bruce Perens.
So, you are convinced that yours is the lesser of two evils? Are you sure?
There appears to be a choice between someone who is conniving and self serving, and someone who is nasty and under handed.
Can you tell which is which?
Will be interesting to watch from a distance, but is there enough distance? hmmm..
I'm not in the US so all I get are news paper reports.
Is it possible for trump to win the presidency? From the outside he looks incredibly divisive even in his own party, but are there enough disenfranchised people that would jump on his band wagon to get over the line?
We had a similar muppet in Australia called Clive Palmer who managed to get elected to our house of reps despite all the press saying he didn't stand a chance.
As a political analyst its simple to understand why a ted cruz candidacy was untenable. We simply need to look at the facts.
.04%. now, while this number is rising at an alarming rate, is nowhere near the 34% required for Ted Cruz to survive outside his spacecraft. his inability to handle Nitrogen and Oxygen perhaps cost him valuable facetime with the american people. Any reasonable subterranean intergalactic cephalopod species could surely identify with the all too common problem of our atmosphere and its no reason to think Ted didnt understand this problem acutely.
1. total Co2 in the earths atmosphere is around
2. The mindgasm with Carly Fiorina was tentative, as the aetherial fluids clearly hadnt been administered yet and the nanites had no substrate on which to build the newmind. Carly lacked ambition, determination, and a plan. Most importantly, she lacked the void stare, obedient subservience, and slow speech and gait that are all classic telltale signs of "the syrum." Of course Ted could have used the mindworms, but its unlikely a true fiscal conservative would take to using them. Theyre just too costly in a campaign.
3. despite liberal restucturing in the identity chamber, teds human form was too precitable and beginning to arouse suspicion of his youthful, larval past as the zodiac killer. Had he simply taken the time to explain that humans are a complete nutritional delicacy for his species and that 4-5 are required to exit the larval stage and return to the hivemind, most conservatives would have viewed this as a good leadership quality.
so heres hoping the Yaylaka prince Don-Al of Ukador persei 9, commonly known as "Don-Al Trumph" does better. and before you bash the candidate, its worth remembering his speech seems to approximate normal english almost 60% of the time! Quite an achievement if youve never slid into a humanform that may or may not have been a long haul trucker from illinois whos been missing for 36 years and presumed dead. I think we can all agree when he says "hail Ji-Ban-Lau forever" he means it.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Pretty much. Clinton is delusional if she thinks after all the insulting things she's said about the Bernie supporters and the various dirty campaigning practices that she's going to get all of us to toe the line. I for one will not vote for that woman. If that means President Trump, then so be it. We can survive 4 years of Trump, I'm not sure we can survive the precedent of letting somebody as pathologically dishonest as Clinton to win.
Just the other day it came out that she's been using the Hillary Clinton Victory fund to funnel donations well above and beyond the legal limit into her campaign coffers. Roughly 99% of the money that was donated, ostensibly for the party and other Democrats has been funneled back into her campaign.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
Is that really better than what Trump can do for us? I doubt very much that he really believes most of the inflammatory rhetoric.
Wait a second...
Rafael Cruz AND Glen Beck both said Ted Cruz was "anointed by god" to be the next president. How could god have gotten it so wrong??
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Regardless of how self serving or fraudulent you may think she is, the odds of Hilary accidentally plunging the whole planet into world War three due to ineptitude seems significantly lower than with Trump.
Trump will need 70% of the white male vote to win the election without votes from every other voting bloc that he so far had managed to alienate. Not happening.
The overwhelming fact about American general elections right now is that white male voters just aren't as powerful as they used to be. In 1980, when the electorate looked very different than it does today, Ronald Reagan cruised to an easy victory by winning 63 percent of white males, according to exit polls. In 1988, George H.W. Bush took 63 percent of that group in his rout of Michael Dukakis. By 2004, however, winning 62 percent of white men barely got George W. Bush past John Kerry in a squeaker. And eight years later, Romney won 62 percent of white men—and lost to Barack Obama by 3.5 million votes.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699
It doesn't help that 70% of women don't like him either.
Donald Trump's image among U.S. women tilts strongly negative, with 70% of women holding an unfavorable opinion and 23% a favorable opinion of the Republican front-runner in March. Trump's unfavorable rating among women has been high since Gallup began tracking it last July, but after rising slightly last fall, it has increased even further since January.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx
I suspect it won't matter. If the choice comes down to being between somewhat-disliked Clinton and outspoken-bigot Trump, a left-leaning voter will still pick Hillary, just to keep things from getting too bad.
The Clintons have a PR problem. Bill was friendly, and eventually that was a liability. Hillary has had mostly bad PR since becoming a controversial Secretary of State, and the Republican party has consistently amplified that controversy, exaggerating real problems and inventing conspiracies. However, Hillary's stated policy positions aren't too bad. Sure, she has ties to the right, and isn't as far to the left as Bernie Sanders, but if she gets the nomination, she's still a Democrat.
In the general election, though, that's exactly what would happen. It will become us-versus-them, and both sides will be sure to keep that in the public eye. If you're a Republican and you don't vote for Trump, the dirty Democrats will win. If you're a Democrat and you don't vote for Clinton, the rotten Republicans will win. I expect mud-slinging all around.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I've been following Scott Adams' blog, and he has some insightful things to say about Trump and how he manages to win.
Scroll back a few entries in the blog and they're pretty interesting.
With that background, I've just this morning figured out how Trump managed to pull it off: he's been using "sad" as a verbal kill-shot.
Check out any image of Ted Cruz, and the most notable feature is his sloping eyebrows. He's definitely got that "sad puppy-dog" look.
Trump has been using "sad" in his speeches for months, and associating it with all sorts of slightly pejorative things. He's never made it specific that he's doing this as an association to Cruz, and "sad" is not extreme rhetoric so it escapes peoples' notice. (He sometimes calls Ted sad, but I'm talking about all the other "sad"s over the past few months.)
Furthermore, he masks it by giving people a more transparent and direct kill-shot: "lying Ted Cruz". People are distracted by the extreme moniker and reject it, and all the while they don't notice that they are slowly building an association between "sad" and a wide range of slightly bad things.
So when they see Ted on stage or in the media, that association is what they feel.
I think it's a case of priming, and Trump has masterfully arm-wrestled Ted's reputation to the floor without him realizing it.
Pundits are quick to point out that Trump's unfavorability is at 70%, and all polls show that Hillary would beat Trump in an election.
What they *don't* say is that Hillary herself is only 12 points lower (56% unfavorability), and that's bound to change over the next 6 months.
In fact, Hillary's unfavorability seems to be creeping up of late, and Trump's is falling.
It's starting to look like he might win.
And that he's winning on purpose.
Who'd of think it?
Trump has a lot of negatives, yes.
And that might matter - if he were not running against Clinton.
Read Looking back: How Trump Beat Hillary
It's pretty amusing how much your posts parallels all of the people claiming Trump had no chance of winning the Republican nomination... The fact is you simply do not understand the vast majority of voters, women and men, white and black, hispanic or any other racial groups.
You've not even factored in how much more strongly Trump is against big banks than Clinton is (not hard to do since the Democrats have for some time been deeply intertwined with the likes of Goldman Sachs, which Trump has taken very little money from banks and has a natural animosity towards them having had to go through them in dealing with business ventures).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trump is literally going to plaster the walls with Hillary, after the first debate that all become apparent even to you... I doubt Hillary will do more than one open debate, and then where will the reclusive sulking get her? Exactly nowhere.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You're ignoring the fact that now that he has the nomination, he's free to move to the center and make nice with women, blacks and mexicans. Anything can still happen.
"Lesser of two evils"
That's funny as hell. Look at what you left yourselves after generations of picking the "Lesser of two evils". Who ever dreamed that Bush could make the suit look good?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
He's undead.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Regardless of how self serving or fraudulent you may think she is, the odds of Hilary accidentally plunging the whole planet into world War three due to ineptitude seems significantly lower than with Trump.
The great majority (if not all) of wars was caused by self-serving leaders, and never by incompetence. Psychopatic minds only interested in their own benefit, financial and political, have been the motive force behind practically all wars in recorded history.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
He's pinin' for the fjords!
I suspect you will see his policies shift, but not in any way that allows for easy categorization. But there is one thing that Trump is very very good at which is he is a mainstream media prediction killer. From pretty much day one every prediction about him by the mainstream media has gone up in smoke. The initial prediction that I read about his campaign was that it would last just long enough for him to promote his show or a book.
Exactly. It's kindof scary that the most likely next president is hated by 75+% of the population. At least with Sanders or Kasich, the other side of the aisle tolerates them. I'm a republican/libertarian and disagree with most of what Sanders believes but I still think that he is a decent human being. I can't say the same about Hillary or Trump. If it was Kasich vs Hillary, I would vote for Kasich, if it was Trump vs Sanders, I would vote for Sanders, but Hillary vs Trump and I have no idea who to vote. We're either going to have one of the highest turnouts or lowest turnouts in voting history and most people are going to be voting *against* a candidate instead of for a candidate.
Regardless of how self serving or fraudulent you may think she is, the odds of Hilary accidentally plunging the whole planet into world War three due to ineptitude seems significantly lower than with Trump.
Yep, Clinton is the status quo. If she gets elected then things will likely be exactly the same 4 years from now as it is now. The problem with this is that the majority of the population is not happy with the status quo which is why Trump, Cruz, and Sanders have been getting so many votes. I know many die-hard democrats that voted for Sanders in the primaries but if Sanders doesn't get the nomination they plan to vote for Trump. People want change and Trump/Sanders are campaigning on change. Clinton is campaigning on keeping things the same and I'm not sure that's a winning strategy in this election year. Trump is a loose cannon and unpredictable but he is promising to shake things up and to create new jobs both things that appeal to a large part of the population on both sides of the aisle.
No....I'm not really a fan of Trump, but he pretty much seems to be an open book. How many politicians do you know of that will have reservation against a certain religious group and openly speak about it? With Trump, what you see is very much what you get. Obama can't claim that (compare his campaign promises vs what he actually did) and Hillary will make Obama look like a saint in that regard.
Really? Hillary has had her hand in throwing lots of people to their deaths in conflicts launched or made worse on her watch. Or are you trying to ignore that part? Ask some Libyans how all that's going lately.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
To the contrary the "war on women" campaign backfired in the congressional elections and it is not polling well as a political concept. Look at the number of college age women that self identify as feminists as well. There is a preception whether real or not that the PC thing has gotten out of control. It has become "uncool". Whatever women believe, when queried they are openly less willing to associate with these things because they're seen as divisive.
This perception is largely the result of males generally seeing modern feminism as hostile to men. Whether that is true or not is not really the issue here because we're talking about politics and politics is about perceptions. Those are the perceptions.
So it is a wash. The numbers were so bad that the Hillary Campaign or their proxies went so far as to claim male democrats voting for Bernie were merely doing so because they don't like women in power. THAT sort of behavior has consequences.
The Attraction of playing the woman card is that you want to get 50 percent of the voters on your side. The risk however is that you may turn off half the voters in the process. What is more, women have very interesting voting patterns depending on whether they're single or not. Single women tend to vote very differently from married women. To a large extent... Hillary is going after single women... that is the demographic that responds to this sort of thing. But the risk is that she can turn off men and even married women in the process which could easily be fatal.
The ultimate fallout here is unknown to either of us. Its all speculation. We won't know what happened or why until after it happened.
Various groups on the internet are over represented and under represented. Judging things based on activity in social media is unreliable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Again, I wish I had a funny mod point to give you.
Anyway, as bad as Trump is, Cruz would have been worse. The Donald's primary identity is "con man" or "salesman" and he doesn't believe most of the crazy stuff he says. He's just saying those things because the suckers want to hear them. In contrast, Cruz's primary personal identity is "religious fanatic", supported by a secondary identity as "technically skilled liar", and he sincerely believed all of the crazy stuff he said, and some more besides.
Trump's nomination actually gives me some hope for the future of America. The so-called Republican Party has become a travesty of itself. Just an insane brand hijack of the actual Republican Party of Abe Lincoln and the pragmatic if overly business-friendly GOP of Ike and Teddy. It is overdue to follow the Whig and Federalists Parties into oblivion so the American political system can have a REAL choice. Yeah, the Democratic Party will win too easily, but it's not like they've ever been able to figure out what they want to do with political power even when they have it. I doubt the new challenger will be the Libertarian Party, but the election of 2018 may reveal which way things are actually going. Hey, it's even conceivable the so-called Republicans can reform themselves enough to earn their own name again.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Can't say I like Hillary that much, but there is one major aspect I do like: She has excellent taste in enemies. Not saying that the enemy of my enemy is automatically my friend, but her loudest and most prominent enemies are on the scale from "despicable" to totally "despicable". I'm liking her more and more just for the nasty things the flagrant bastards say about her.
The second thing I rather like about her candidacy is that she is obviously vastly more qualified and competent than Trump (or Cruz) and significantly better than any of the other prominent candidates the so-called Republicans were considering. If they had found a candidate like Abe Lincoln, Teddy, or Ike, today's fake Republicans would have booed him out of the first debate.
The main reason I still prefer Bernie is that his primary personal identity is "idealist", and I think they are basically harmless compared to most of the alternatives. Hillary's #1 identity is probably "corporate lawyer" and "idealist" probably isn't in her top 10. I'm not sure "politician" is in the top 5, but she has Bill on her side, and his clear #1 is "politician", so I think she's covered there. (President Obama is also a primary politician, if you ask me, and I regard that as a bad (but evidently almost absolute) requirement for the office these years. I think Carter and Ford were the last exceptions.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I would be surprised if even half of the Democrats I know will vote for Hillary ever.
I'm a registered Democrat, and to put it lightly, I'm not a big fan of Hillary. But if it actually mattered, I would hold my nose and vote for her over Trump. As it is, though, I live in an overwhelmingly red state. We're giving our votes to the Republican nominee, regardless of who it is or what their policies are (or whether they even have any). So I might just go ahead and vote for Trump anyway. My vote is meaningless in the context of the electoral college, but I'd rather not help give the impression that Hillary enjoys more popular support than she really does.
What in the world? Hillary Clinton's two biggest "controversies" are Benghazi, which is about as much of a controversy as global warming, and this whole email scandal where she used a private server instead of the State Department one. Given how many government servers have been hacked in the last ten years, the emails were probably safer there than they were on the government system anyway.
Pretending that Hillary Clinton is anywhere in the same zip code as despicable a person as Trump is to ignore basic facts about the two people and their history. The only reason people even think stupid things like this is because we've been taught by the 24-hour news cycle to look at the constantly-updating horse race statistics rather than the actual policies and histories of the candidates.
It's funny that the American version of "extreme leftist" looks somewhat centrist from a European/Australian perspective.
Good thing is that US geopolitically is as good as ever. Europe as usual is in trouble...
Please elaborate? There is UK voting on EU membership (ironically the politicians there is probably learning the same lesson as the GOP: don't produce fear mongering using opinions you don't really share)...
Then there is some ongoing financial trouble in Greece... Economic growth isn't completely back yet (but that the same case for 99% of the Americans).
But these are likely solved given time and luck, things are definitely being addressed.
The whole refugee crisis, is not a crisis, just an under-investment in refuges... The European countries can fix that anytime. It's mostly a superficial issue, not actual trouble in any sense.
So I'm curious how do you see a Europe in crisis?
Now watch Trump air Hillary's dirty laundry 24x7 all the way until the election. I would not be that she would win, especially if he starts acting more "presidential" so to speak. There are a shit ton of very bad skeletons in her closet, some of them chucked there by her husband.
It's also pretty centrist from an American historical perspective, and from a policies-the-general-American-populace-actually-support perspective.
It's only "extreme leftist" from a myopic, mainstream-media-manufactured view of the political spectrum.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Yeah, as a European, the whole cold war just seems to have increasingly polarized the former USSR to the extreme left and the USA to the extreme right.
In the US, any mention of the word "social" seems to be interpreted as "communist" to the point where "anti-social" has become a positive.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
If those that dislike Hillary and Trump voted for a single 3rd party candidate, they'd probably win. I'm a Bernie supporter that has decided to vote 3rd party. I've heard "you're wasting your vote" every time I've mentioned it. I don't care at this point. It's the only way we'll ever buck the current two party system.
Hillary has no real accomplishments short of getting her husband and herself elected to numerous offices and then using those offices to make as much money as they possibly can. How much do they charge the secret service rent? Is it really enough to pay their mortgages? I bet it is enough to pay the average American's mortgage. Probably the average 10 Americans. How much do they charge to speak? How many foreign governments and companies have they taken money from? What exactly does their non-profit do besides pay for their travel expenses to speaking engagements?
She talks about giving the average American the same chances she had. How is she going to do that? Seminars on trading in cattle futures? Maybe how to setup a large scale chicken farm with her moneyed friends?
Her term as secretary of state was a disaster. She chose to intervene in Libya and not to confront ISIS. She made a big deal out of pressing a big red reset button with Vladimir Putin, who reset Russian expansionism.
As far as her policies, it would be better to look at whatever Bernie Sanders said two weeks ago. That's assuming she really means what she says and what the definition of is is.
Richard Nixon was so far to the left that he would have made Hillary look like a Republican!
I wish it was a joke but with the EPA, his health care proposals and a few other things he would be called a Communist by some Republicans if he was pushing such things today. That was of course before Koch and other similar donors made the demands that shaped current politics.
It will be interesting to see what the rest of the GOP do now. After a year of trashing Trump, calling him all sorts of things, they are either going to have to eat several courses of humble pie or rip the party apart by continuing to oppose their official candidate.
The polls suggest that Trump will find it hard to beat Hillary, because despite some popularity he also has a higher disapproval rating than anyone in the history of politics. Then again you can never rule anyone out in a two horse race. For me a Trump win would be a nightmare scenario, but I'm also kind of curious to see how the rest of the world would react.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You're assuming that we'll still have a country after the Democrats are finished with it...
Ever the optimist, eh? Of course you will still have a country, even if you feel the Democrats are idiots. They may not have the right ideas in your view, but they still want to govern for the benefit of the whole of the nation - as will the Republicans, if they win. At the end of the day, both sides (or all sides, if you have more than two parties) have to trust their opponents to at least want to do what they think is right for the entire nation - otherwise, you end up like Syria or Libya. Nations fail at democracy, when the winners in an election only govern to benefit their own supporters and the all distrust each others. The point I'm trying to get across is: it is up to everybody - you and I included - to decide to trust our opponents, even if we disagree with them; that is what really determines the future of the nation.
Anyway, as bad as Trump is, Cruz would have been worse. The Donald's primary identity is "con man" or "salesman" and he doesn't believe most of the crazy stuff he says.
This is undoubtedly true; I was going to say that the choice between the two was like choosing between plague and cholera, but now-a-days both are survivable (that was a joke, BTW). In practice I don't actually think it matters enormously - the problems you are faced with, running a nation, are the same, whoever you are, and in most cases the solutions are going to be dictated by the problems; the only differences will be in symbol policies: things that don't really matter, but which look "conservative/liberal/..." or whatever colour you want to show.
A president, being the leader of the whole nation, must at least be able to care about the interests of everybody in the country, and be able to attract the respect of the international community. I feel pretty sure Cruz is too narrow minded to recognise that his policies would be beneficial to only to those who share his mindset and harmful to most of the rest, and I can't tell whether Trump actually gives a shit about the subject - he seems to change with the prevailing wind. As for international respect - I doubt anybody would trust a religious extremist, and Trump's erratic outbursts won't be easily forgotten. As far as I can see, he has cast himself in a rather bad light - he has already alienated Mexico and China, and if he holds that stance, then he won't be met with a lot of goodwill from those two or their allies in South America and Africa, among others. And of course, if he changes tack just like that, they will think that he is untrustworthy and slippery, which may be just as bad.
As sinister as it may sound, the success of Trump, Sanders, the Tea Party movement and even suicidal maniacs like Daesh, are all symptoms of the growing resentment against the unfairness of what looks like a progressively smaller upper class, who have access to all the advantages and are determined to keep it that way, and who are unwilling to listen to even the most reasonable demands of the majority. I think the only way to really change things is for people on the ground to reach out across their differences and unite to change the way these things work. People would probably find that the things they are unhappy with are the same thing the Tea Party don't like, as well as those on the left etc. I have often been surprised to find that I agree with people who claim to dead against Socialism because, as they say, they believe in freedom, self-determination, etc; to me those things are very much part of socialism. Of course, one can discuss whether is should be called socialism or not, but the point is - we are not really that different, and we could easily work together. And change things.
As a foreigner who doesn't even live in the US, perhaps you could help me understand how the "evil" of Clinton will damage the country? From here it looks like Trump is already causing damage in international relations and domestically in terms of fuelling bigotry and hate. I suppose with Clinton we should expect a presidency distracted by the GOP going after her for an impeachment like her husband (mail server instead of Lewinsky)?
CryHelicopter more like. You sound like an emo teen blowing everything out of all proportion, convinced their interpretation of reality is infallible.
Your approach to democracy is beyond childish. For a country which espouses such love and respect for democracy, it's amazing how the democratic process has devolved to some team sport, with people like you cheering on from the sidelines. You suck at this.
I think the point my AC friend here is trying to illustrate is that so much of our country is lost in this same mindset as Trump. Clinton (and really any democrat, or even most of the republicans for that matter) is seen as nothing but the enemy to them. What's interesting to me is that most of my Democrat friends seem to actually support their candidate (Bernie or Hillary, but not both) and most of my Republican friends seem to oppose Trump but not actually support anyone. To me, the latter is impressive given the fact that they had so many people to choose from. My personal opinion is that no matter who wins, it will be another 4-8 years of not really doing much because congress and the house will continue to oppose the president strongly no matter who they are -- which may actually be our saving grace. Just peruse the comments on any article like this one on any US news website and see how many people are attacking each other (very offensively and aggressively, I might add) to see what is going on here.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
I would point out that the gullible trump supporters are somewhat more complex than that. They believe that Trump means the things he says that they agree with, and they believe that he does not really mean the things he says that they disagree with. They are absolutely convinced of his dishonesty, yet they somehow think he's on their side.
NPR's This American Life did a segment about Alex Chalgren, an african-american, gay Trump supporter. In the segment, Alex explained that he supported Trump because Trump supported gay rights. Later when confronted by a statement from Trump saying that he would try to appoint judges to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage, he continued to defend Trump. He said that Trump only made the statement to get votes.
Trump rejected the one issue that Alex chose him for, and Alex continued to support him.
http://www.thisamericanlife.or...