Did Trump Jump the Shark?


#1

If people suspected Trump wasn’t conservative before, now they know for a fact: Bush lied to get us into Iraq, Planned Parenthood does wonderful things, conservatives are wrong on eminent domain, Bush should have been impeached, blaming Bush for 9/11…

Are there any Trump supporters here that still support Trump after last night?

ETA: Some of the stuff Trump said, you don’t even hear at Democrat rallies, it’s so far left.


#2

Yes.


#3

Count yourself among a shrinking group then.


#4

**
CBS News on the CBS News Republican debate:**
STORY >> Poll: Who won the CBS News Republican debate? - CBS News
POLL DATA >> CBS News Republican debate poll topline

Immediately after Saturday night’s Republican debate, CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of debate watchers assembled by GfK’s Knowledge Panel who identified themselves as Republicans or independents.

Thirty-two percent of these debate watchers say Marco Rubio won the debate, beating out Donald Trump (24 percent) and John Kasich (19 percent), who are ranked second and third, respectively. Further down on the list are Ted Cruz (12 percent), Ben Carson (8 percent), and Jeb Bush (5 percent).

Marco Rubio is the clear favorite among Republicans, while independents are largely divided between Trump, Kasich, and Rubio.

Donald Trump has been leading national polls for months, and he is seen by Republican and independent debate watchers as the most likely – with 42 percent – of the six candidates to win in November should he get the nomination. But Marco Rubio comes in second (22 percent), beating out Ted Cruz (14 percent) by eight points.

In light of the breaking news about the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the candidates were asked during the debate about presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. No candidate last night seemed to have a clear advantage as to who is most trusted to appoint justices to the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump is the clear leader on values. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans and independents who watched the debate pick Trump as the candidate who most shares their values, with Ben Carson and Marco Rubio tied for second place, each with 16 percent. Rubio does better than Kasich among Republicans, while Kasich does better than Rubio among independents.

But when it comes to the candidate who is best prepared to be President, Republicans and independent debate watchers choose John Kasich first (22 percent), just edging out Donald Trump (20 percent) by two points.

Still, Donald Trump enjoys a strong leading position on all the issues measured in this poll: the economy, immigration, terrorism, and bringing needed change. Rubio comes in second - ahead of Cruz - on immigration. Kasich comes in second on the economy and jobs


#5

<blockquote class=“twitter-tweet” data-lang=“en”><p lang=“en” dir=“ltr”><a href=“https://twitter.com/hashtag/DonaldTrump?src=hash”>#DonaldTrump</a> <a href=“https://twitter.com/hashtag/GOPDebate?src=hash”>#GOPDebate</a> <a href=“https://twitter.com/hashtag/RealDonaldTrump?src=hash”>#RealDonaldTrump</a> <a href=“https://twitter.com/hashtag/JebBush?src=hash”>#JebBush</a> - The results from last night are are in… <a href=“https://t.co/Xw2heMWF91”>pic.twitter.com/Xw2heMWF91</a></p>— Casey Scott (@KCScott7) <a href=“https://twitter.com/KCScott7/status/698960810509467649”>February 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset=“utf-8”></script>

<blockquote class=“twitter-tweet” data-lang=“en”><p lang=“en” dir=“ltr”><a href=“https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump”>@realDonaldTrump</a> your new nickname is “titanium Trump”! <a href=“https://twitter.com/hashtag/GOPDebate?src=hash”>#GOPDebate</a> showed NO ONE will break down our beloved Trump!:steam_locomotive::dash::us::us::us::us:<a href=“https://twitter.com/DanScavino”>@DanScavino</a></p>— Donna4Donald (@TrumpfanBucksPA) <a href=“https://twitter.com/TrumpfanBucksPA/status/698961065594507264”>February 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset=“utf-8”></script>

<blockquote class=“twitter-tweet” data-lang=“en”><p lang=“en” dir=“ltr”>jeb bush: “my mom is the strongest person I know”<br>donald trump: “then she should be running” <a href=“https://twitter.com/hashtag/GOPDebate?src=hash”>#GOPDebate</a></p>— mohamed suleman (@mmohamed_99) <a href=“https://twitter.com/mmohamed_99/status/698960871951896576”>February 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset=“utf-8”></script>

<blockquote class=“twitter-tweet” data-lang=“en”><p lang=“en” dir=“ltr”>I’ve always wanted somebody to run for POTUS who is saying what Trump is saying. Do what’s good for the Country not what’s good 4 the party</p>— RockPrincess (@Rockprincess818) <a href=“https://twitter.com/Rockprincess818/status/698946101257199616”>February 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset=“utf-8”></script>


#6

Well, Bush did lie; by omission.

The director of the CIA came to see Bush at the White House months before the invasion, and told him that the CIA was steadily concluding that their intel pointing to WMDs in Iraq was not credible.

Mind, it was the CIA itself who had told Bush of the weapons to begin with; now here they were throwing water on the very fire that they had started.

Bush and Cheney however waived this, and just told the director to go back to his office and keep rein-investigating his “facts”.

The invasion of Iraq was built on spurious ground. Colin Powell, who had acted as the chief advocate of both the Invasion and the Intel to the U.N., convincing a whole list of unconvinced countries to sign onto Resolution 1441… admitted outright that the intel was wrong, all within about 6 months.

If we had spent a little more time assessing the facts, if we had been urging caution instead of action, we would have caught on that our Intel operators had been building mountains out of mole hills. But the Administration urged action, because they sank their credibility into building Saddam up as a threat, and thought, even if the intel was wrong, that invading was the correct course of action regardless.

Convince the public to do the right thing, for the wrong reasons. We’ll deal with the consequences after-the-fact.” More or less their logic.

, Planned Parenthood does wonderful things, conservatives are wrong on eminent domain, Bush should have been impeached, blaming Bush for 9/11…

All of these things are awful of course, but what do you mean “blame Bush for 9/11”? Surely he hasn’t turned 9/11 Truther?


#7

Wouldn’t be surprised.

However, it wasn’t JUST the CIA who believed Saddam had WMDs. EVERY intel agency on the planet did. Our area commanding general was WARNED by both the King of Jordan AND Mubarak of Egypt that Iraq had WMDs and was prepared to USE them when the US went back in in 2003. Recalling how we DESTROYED his armor and air force in 1991, he instead chose to ship them out of the country–like he did with the remnants of his air force except THIS time he chose to send them to a Sunni country where he thought he’d have a better chance of getting them back later.


#8

VIA the CIA’s intel; other Intel agencies had not investigated to the same degree, they didn’t have their own agents in the field as the CIA did.

Spain, Germany, who were the two major players that engaged in parallel investigations that concurred with the CIA’s conclusions, were basing their case on what the CIA field intel told them. They didn’t consult a different source.

This turned out to be critical, as the CIA had… “embellished” their intel, likely out of a desire to appear on the ball after the terrible oversight 9/11 had been for them, and had resulted in their losing their position as the head of American Intelligence community.

raq had WMDs and was prepared to USE them when the US went back in in 2003

Which wasn’t true of course.

Saddam was a chronic liar, and here, he was lying for the specific purpose of deterring an invasion by the Iranians. The Iranians had clear ground superiority, even before 1991, and were still holding grudges from their last war. Afterward 1991, Saddam was left in a tenuous position where even the Kurds could make consistent challenges to his authority, openly engaging in relations with the Iranian regime.

Saddam let his inner circle know that he didn’t have these weapons; and he lied to everyone else, even his own staff who he knew were providing Intel consciously or unconsciously to his enemies, both within and outside of Iraq.

Saddam was also a tad… conceited. He didn’t believe for a moment we would invade, and even as we did so, he didn’t believe we would take over and boot him out of office.

This is why he didn’t burn his oil wells in 2003, and why he didn’t commit his whole force from the start to fight us. He was planning for the post-invasion where he thought he would be left to once again re-build his regime.


#9

Did Saddam lie? Of COURSE he did–but he DID have both chemical and bio weapons that he could have used against us. I spent 8 years in the intel community and still have a couple of contacts there, or who were there in the 90’s and early 2000’s. We KNOW that he sent them–along with family members and those of close advisors–to Aleppo a couple of days before the invasion in 2003. The reason he didn’t use them was that Bush TOLD him that if he did, we’d use tactical nukes in retaliation and he, as you surmise, thought he could weather the storm and survive to fight another day, but not if we used a nuclear strike.


#10

No; he had remnants of mustard gas, and another Sarin program that ended in 1996 meant for interrogation.

The ISG itself concluded that, without a facility like they had at Al Muthanna State Establishment, the only scale the Iraqis could have produced in secret would have been either for Interrogation, or assassination. They no longer had the scale or capability to make munitions useful for war.

We don’t have anything hidden!” the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would “roam Iraq for 50 years” in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. “When is this going to end?” he asked.

It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration’s stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 – to locate WMD.

The newly released documents are among U.S. government translations of audiotapes or Arabic-language transcripts from top-level Iraqi meetings – dating from about 1996-97 back to the period soon after the 1991 Gulf War, when the U.N. Security Council sent inspectors to disarm Iraq.

Transcripts Show Saddam Frustrated Over WMD Claims | Fox News

If Saddam would tell this to his own inner circle, then there’s no doubt he himself didn’t believe he had them.


#11

Despite his reckless style, I was glad to see Trump bring up some important foreign policy points, in South Carolina no less.

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical for the U.S. to help out Iraq’s WMD program and then cry foul later? Oh yeah, and we turned a blind eye to Saddam’s chemical weapon attacks.

Let’s be honest, regime change in Iraq had been planned since the 90s. There was even a congressional resolution calling for it. The Bush administration took advantage of the war fervor after 9/11 to make it’s move. They hyped up WMD fear and tried to draw lines between Saddam and Bin Laden. It was dishonest at the very least.

We see the destabilization it has caused the region. (Yes, the pull out happened at a bad time, but Iraq was never going to improve as long as we were there) Of course, there was money lost, we diverted valuable resources away from fighting the people who actually attacked us, and our veterans have no been taken care of.


#12

[quote=“DHLiberal, post:1, topic:48276”]
If people suspected Trump wasn’t conservative before, now they know for a fact: Bush lied to get us into Iraq, Planned Parenthood does wonderful things, conservatives are wrong on eminent domain, Bush should have been impeached, blaming Bush for 9/11…

Are there any Trump supporters here that still support Trump after last night?

ETA: Some of the stuff Trump said, you don’t even hear at Democrat rallies, it’s so far left.
[/quote]How do we get your well-written message out to the Republican world in time for this Saturday? I suspect this all ends quite badly.


#13

Trump is NOT A CONSERVATIVE!! I’ve been shouting this out since he entered the race.

Did Trump “jump the shark” in his So Carolina debate?

Yes, but then he has been “jumping the shark” since the start of his run and folks haven’t seemed to give a damn.

The question is, were the people listening to what he said or simply enthralled with his political incorrect style?

I would also ask this question: Since Trump is NOT a conservative would you trust him to be the one to appoint a replacement for Scalia? I WOULD NOT!!


#14

And we’ve been saying, “WE KNOW!”

Did Trump “jump the shark” in his So Carolina debate?

Yes, but then he has been “jumping the shark” since the start of his run and folks haven’t seemed to give a damn.

To some, he jumped the shark. Others defend his actions. It’s a matter of perception. People have different tolerance levels, and not all people share the same values. (And you can see right here on this board that not all people even share the same facts.)

The question is, were the people listening to what he said or simply enthralled with his political incorrect style?

Both. Trump spoke to issues that needed to be aired, and did so boldly where most others merely tip-toed around illegal immigration, allowing would-be terrorists into our nation under the umbrella of ‘refugees’, and hitting countries hard where they are abusing us economically.
If it weren’t for his boldness, those issues would still be nothing more than talking points for politicians. Now if they address the issues, they better be clear, and they better plan to follow through because they KNOW that we’re listening, and will hold their feet to the fire.

I would also ask this question: Since Trump is NOT a conservative would you trust him to be the one to appoint a replacement for Scalia? I WOULD NOT!!

I didn’t take that cold, hard reality seriously enough until it hit me right square in the face.

Most thought it’d be Ginsberg we were going to need to replace. Many are asking, “Why Scalia?!” (and not her.) Odd as it may sound, I don’t know that I’d be taking it as seriously had it been she and not he.


#15

I think Trump’s petulant attack on Bush 43 in the pro-military state of So Carolina might possibly have the unintended consequence of helping none other than Jeb Bush. Just what we do NOT need. Bush has the money - should he get momentum he could conceivably be around to the end. That is not good as far as I’m concerned. I think Trump may have hurt himself and I hope he did.

He’s now claiming the RNC stacked the audience and that’s why he got booed for claiming Bush 43 flat out lied to the American people about Iraq having WMDs. Look, the Pope himself would have been booed for that comment in front of an audience in pro-military So Carolina. Trump is intimating once again that he might go Independent if he continues getting booed.

The man is a loose cannon fully capable (willing??) of handing the election to the Democrats. IMO.

Trump’s “shtick” is that he is a winner. If/when he loses a race he just might go apesh*t.


#16

Trump’s comments on Bush 43, the Iraq war, 9/11 and planned parenthood may not have been motivated to hurt Jeb; they might even help him a little. Trump may have been appealing to South Carolina democrats who may dislike Hillary and Bernie. The South Carolina primary is open to all regardless of party affiliation.


#17

In my small opinion…Trump is succeeding (sadly) at what he is setting out to do. He is turning conservatives against each other by ripping the wounds of 9/11 open (no one mentioned 9/11 before Trump) and attacking a former president who happens to have a national 77% approval rating in the party. His end game is to run 3rd party and give an easy win to the democrats - a party which up until just a few years ago, he identified as. He still espouses their agenda and beliefs as far as planned parenthood and universal healthcare is concerned. His only purpose was to destroy the republican party and make what should have been a difficult year for the democrats the most easy election they have had to date.
I’ll keep praying for Ted Cruz.


#18

[quote=“MDMikeB, post:15, topic:48276”]
I think Trump’s petulant attack on Bush 43 in the pro-military state of So Carolina might possibly have the unintended consequence of helping none other than Jeb Bush. Just what we do NOT need. Bush has the money - should he get momentum he could conceivably be around to the end. That is not good as far as I’m concerned. I think Trump may have hurt himself and I hope he did.
[/quote]Re-read these two sentences.


#19

In those countries that allowed these “refugees” in crime has increased. Women are raped. Citizens are threaten. The government has kicked people out of their homes to allow them in. Refugees get goodies and still complain it is not enough. Terrorism is on the increase in those places.

ANd obama wants the same for here.


#20

Good catch. I don’t think Trump helped Bush, but I do think he hurt himself. Then again, my bias toward Bush is so strong that nothing could help him in my eyes.