The Don

[The Chosen One]

This is exclusively for all things related to the Donald.

Gave out Lindsey Grahams number to the public. Lol

[thethe]

This is all about keeping himself relevant. I hope the American people aren't stupid enough to make him president.

[Krgrecw]

This is all about keeping himself relevant. I hope the American people aren't stupid enough to make him president.


Can't be anymore stupid than electing a community organizer president. Can it?

[AerchAngel]

Can't be anymore stupid than electing a community organizer president. Can it?

true

[Runnin]

I'll take another community organizer before an arrogant businessman.

The argument that Trump is doing this to remain relevant isn't exactly true. He wants more than relevancy. He knows in the circus of American politics there is no comment off-limits, especially when you are already perceived to be a clown.

[bravesnumberone]

Yea my paper was there today. He is an insufferable prick.

[50PoundHead]

I'll take another community organizer before an arrogant businessman.

The argument that Trump is doing this to remain relevant isn't exactly true. He wants more than relevancy. He knows in the circus of American politics there is no comment off-limits, especially when you are already perceived to be a clown.

Community organizer who was president of the Harvard Law Review and held elective office at two levels of government. Yea, he was just handing out leaflets and running a food shelf.

[bravesnumberone]

Community organizer who was president of the Harvard Law Review and held elective office at two levels of government. Yea, he was just handing out leaflets and running a food shelf.

Leaflets for weathermen terrorists nonetheless, amirite?

[50PoundHead]

Leaflets for weathermen terrorists nonetheless, amirite?

That and legalized marijuana.

[bravesnumberone]

Trump eventually will circle back around to the birth certificate, I'm sure.

[Hawk]

Yea, he was just handing out leaflets and running a food shelf.

A brief digest of the Obama Presidency.

[The Chosen One]

"I see Rick Perry the other day, and he's so he's doing very poorly in the polls. He put glasses on so people think he's smart." - The Don

Poor Rick, that oops moment will always haunt him. hahahaha

[acesfull86]

This guy is one hell of a troll. Personally, I love it. Wouldn't vote for him, but I love it.

[Hawk]

Best of all, Trump doesn't use a Teleprompter.

---

"We have a president who just can't say a few words: 'Put the flags at half-mast for the five Marines that were just killed.' Why? Why? Why? ... It's almost like, does he read the papers? Does he watch television?"

"We're tired of being pushed around, kicked around ... and led by stupid people. They're stupid people!"

[Hawk]

Graham with a decently brilliant comeback:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSFRMJhlgY

[The Chosen One]

Lindsey has multiple phones I'd imagine. That flip phone for posturing, and then the phone he has for all of his secret boyfriends.

[bravesnumberone]

Lindsey has multiple phones I'd imagine. That flip phone for posturing, and then the phone he has for all of his secret boyfriends.

:Bowman:

[weso1]

I'm just going to throw this out there, because everyone thinks Donald Trump would be a terrible President. Imo, he would be a very moderate president. I honestly don't see him as a huge game changer. Most of his controversy is strictly with his verbiage, but politically he's pretty moderate. I don't support him. My support is fully with Kasich right now, but Trump's ideals aren't really all that extreme. I actually think he'd be a mediocre president. I mean Bill Clinton literally stuck a cigar in his intern's vagina, and yet folks are sitting there with a straight face saying that Trump is controversial.

[Hawk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdyeGxgbtxQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=258&v=q1xKYFcCKOA

Regardless of your political bias, Donald Trump is incredibly entertaining to watch.

Could you watch a 20-minute interview of Jeb or Hillary all the way through? Nah.

[jpx7]

Regardless of your political bias, Donald Trump is incredibly entertaining to watch.

Regardless of my political bias, I honestly don't find Donald Trump entertaining in the slightest.

[Hawk]

Regardless of my political bias, I honestly don't find Donald Trump entertaining in the slightest.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/AlexClarke/JOE_WILSON_YOU_LIE.jpg

[jpx7]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/AlexClarke/JOE_WILSON_YOU_LIE.jpg

I deceive you not: I've never been amused by his schtick, and this recent trolling of the Republican primaries hasn't changed that.

I'd say this (http://www.theonion.com/article/donald-trump-stares-forlornly-at-tiny-aged-penis-i-28589) is probably the most amusing Trump-adjacent media I've encountered.

[Runnin]

I mean Bill Clinton literally stuck a cigar in his intern's vagina, and yet folks are sitting there with a straight face saying that Trump is controversial.That really happened? I thought it was a metaphor.

But I see no controversy in what 2 consenting adults do behind closed doors. It was terrible judgement but would've never been a big deal in any country run by grownups.

[keithlaw]

lol he got limbaugh to call republicans cuckolds

[yeezus]

Graham with a decently brilliant comeback:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSFRMJhlgY

this was an awesome response. big props to him for it.

[Hawk]

I'd say this (http://www.theonion.com/article/donald-trump-stares-forlornly-at-tiny-aged-penis-i-28589) is probably the most amusing Trump-adjacent media I've encountered.

Satirical news bores me (it took me 24 hours to realize that was a link).

[Hawk]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/donald-trump-channeling-richard-nixon

Mother Jones: Donald Trump Is Channeling Richard Nixon

The Silent Majority. At a campaign rally in South Carolina on Tuesday, Trump declared, "There is something happening. You know there used to be the expression, many of you have heard it, and for some reasons for years, it hasn't been....The silent majority. There's a silent majority out there. We're tried of being pushed around, kicked around, and acting and being led by stupid people. They're stupid people." Nixon popularized the "silent majority" term in a November 1969 speech, in which he pleaded for support for his war effort in Vietnam. He referred to those Americans not protesting the war or joining the counterculture as the "great silent majority."

Law and order. Following the recent shootings in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which claimed the lives of five service-members, Trump exclaimed, "Whether it's Islamic or anything else, it's getting worse. We're losing law and order." Law and order—that was a core element of Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign. As the Nixon presidential library puts it, "In January 1968, Nixon decided to once again seek the nomination of the Republican Party for president. Portraying himself as a figure of stability in a time of national upheaval, Nixon promised a return to traditional values and 'law and order.'"

A secret plan to end the war. In a recent interview with the Des Moines Register, Trump asserted that he has a plan to destroy ISIS: "I have an absolute way of defeating ISIS, and it would be decisive and quick and it would be very beautiful. Very surgical." What is this plan? Did it involve ground troops? Drone strikes? Trump wouldn't say. He was keeping it a secret: "If I tell you right now, everyone else is going to say, 'Wow, what a great idea.' You're going to have 10 candidates going to use it and they're going to forget where it came from. Which is me." During the 1968 campaign, Nixon promoted—or, at least, allowed to stand—the impression that he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War. But he didn't. The war continued for years after his inauguration—until Nixon and Henry Kissinger negotiated with the North Vietnamese a US withdrawal. In the meantime, thousands of US GIs died.

[50PoundHead]

Believe me, having grown up during the heyday of all things Nixon and deploring him mightily, I can only say that Trump is a mental midget compared to Mr. "I am not a crook."

Trump just strikes me as a spoiled child. The problem with him is that no one ever kicked the sh*t out of him in a fist fight.

[Hawk]

Nixon was a genius. His 68' /72' elections were two of the most strategically brilliant campaigns I've ever seen.

---

Yeah, Trump is a priggish buffoon -- but tell me something I haven't known since 1990.

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/07/23/150723_donald_trump_ap_11601_956x519.jpg

When people get bored of attacking his personality then hopefully the attacks will transition to issues.

He's enjoying a Herman Cain high ... those moments before people realize that he's not actually a politician.

Then again, the electorate has amply demonstrated in recent cycles (Cain/Sanders/Paul) that it wants to embrace non-traditional leaders.

[50PoundHead]

Nixon was an evil genius. His 68' /72' elections were two of the most strategically brilliant campaigns I've ever seen.

---

Yeah, Trump is a priggish buffoon -- but tell me something I haven't known since 1990.

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/07/23/150723_donald_trump_ap_11601_956x519.jpg

When people get bored of attacking his personality then hopefully the attacks will transition to issues.

He's enjoying a Herman Cain high ... those moments before people realize that he's not actually a politician.

Then again, the electorate has amply demonstrated in recent cycles (Cain/Sanders/Paul) that it wants to embrace non-traditional leaders.

Fixed the Nixon description.

Agree on Trump. Everyone wants the straight-talkin' type until it becomes apparent that one needs to build coalitions to get things done. Trump is the current representation of the id in the American politics. I think Rand Paul differs from his father enough that he could build a coalition. Probably not a coalition I would agree with, but a coalition nonetheless.

[sturg33]

I don't like Trump's beliefs politically... but I do like his candor. I always enjoyed the show the Apprentice - though I realize they went out of their way to make him a likable character.

Having said that, if it's true he's not taking any money, and running on his own dime - I give him mad props for that

[weso1]

Trump has found something. It would be stupid for the GOP to ignore it. I'll tell you one guy who may benefit from this is Ted Cruz. Here's a guy that can cash in on Trump's followers once Trump finally does something too outlandish, or people just start getting cold feet. Cruz is a guy that has a much better filter, but will still throw some heaters, and he's also a guy that grumps about similar issues. Cruz is also very smart, so if you want the next Nixon, I wouldn't be surprised if it's Cruz. But of course I would hope w/o the scandal.

[Oklahomahawk]

Not that anybody likely cares, but while I loathe Trump, I would much rather have him as president than Jindal, the HP lady, Carson, Cruz (2nd worst of the candidates I actually ever heard of), Christie, Huck, Rand, Perry, Santorum, or my personal fave to totally effing loathe, Scott "why yes I am a POS Walker". I don't really know enough about Rubio, though when I see on TV, etc., he still seems unsure of himself, Kasich reminds me of Newt, some of the stuff he says I like but then he'll go and make some WTF comment and makes me want to run away, and Bush is about one more Koch-sucking comment away from joining them.

On the Dem side I'm not crazy about Hillary, never have been, though I really think she would be much more like a Repub president than most of the conservatives on this forum would ever admit to. I do think it's shameful (sorry Hawk) that when somebody like Steak Sauce posts a meme on here about how our totally effed up, perverted form of "free market" (rotflmao) is ruining this country they get immediately jumped on. Bernie Sanders, as well as Elizabeth Warren are absolutely right about that, whether any of you are honest and free thinking enough to admit it, but to me while I agree with "Bern" on those few things, I see him as a "one trick pony" his foreign policy stuff will probably cost him any outside chance he may have ever had, ala Ron Paul.

In short, we're all screwed.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to include Lindsay "867-5309" Graham on my POS list. My bad.

[Hawk]

I do think it's shameful (sorry Hawk) that when somebody like Steak Sauce posts a meme on here about how our totally effed up, perverted form of "free market" (rotflmao) is ruining this country they get immediately jumped on.

I don't even know what you are talking about.

[Oklahomahawk]

I don't even know what you are talking about.

Shameful was one of your terms from previous discussions and I didn't want to get into trouble for copyright infringement. :)

[acesfull86]

I do think it's shameful (sorry Hawk) that when somebody like Steak Sauce posts a meme on here about how our totally effed up, perverted form of "free market" (rotflmao) is ruining this country they get immediately jumped on.

Maybe if some meat were provided rather than the internet's version of a bumper sticker, the response would be different...

[jpx7]

Satirical news bores me (it took me 24 hours to realize that was a link).

Different strokes.

But yea: links are pretty impossible to see on this site. Paging Fearless Leader (http://www.chopcountry.com/forums/member.php?u=1).

[Carp]

This is all about keeping himself relevant. I hope the American people aren't stupid enough to make him president.

I'm not voting for him, but I am at least somewhat confident he could balance a budget.

[50PoundHead]

Not that anybody likely cares, but while I loathe Trump, I would much rather have him as president than Jindal, the HP lady, Carson, Cruz (2nd worst of the candidates I actually ever heard of), Christie, Huck, Rand, Perry, Santorum, or my personal fave to totally effing loathe, Scott "why yes I am a POS Walker". I don't really know enough about Rubio, though when I see on TV, etc., he still seems unsure of himself, Kasich reminds me of Newt, some of the stuff he says I like but then he'll go and make some WTF comment and makes me want to run away, and Bush is about one more Koch-sucking comment away from joining them.

On the Dem side I'm not crazy about Hillary, never have been, though I really think she would be much more like a Repub president than most of the conservatives on this forum would ever admit to. I do think it's shameful (sorry Hawk) that when somebody like Steak Sauce posts a meme on here about how our totally effed up, perverted form of "free market" (rotflmao) is ruining this country they get immediately jumped on. Bernie Sanders, as well as Elizabeth Warren are absolutely right about that, whether any of you are honest and free thinking enough to admit it, but to me while I agree with "Bern" on those few things, I see him as a "one trick pony" his foreign policy stuff will probably cost him any outside chance he may have ever had, ala Ron Paul.

In short, we're all screwed.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to include Lindsay "867-5309" Graham on my POS list. My bad.

But tell us what you really think! Hey you talkin' about Ted Cruz?!?

I agree that Hillary would strike a very moderate course on the domestic side of things and she'll run to the right (perhaps even well to the right) of Obama on foreign policy when she gets to the general election season. She may be able to work with a Republican Congress better than Jeb.

Glad to see you like Scott Walker as much as I do. My brother-in-law works in Wisconsin and likes the guy, but then I reminded him that he equated his son (not just his son, but all the folks in attendance) with a terrorist for demonstrating at the Wisconsin State Capitol.

Was Tommy Tutone actually singing about Lindsay?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTdTwcmxyo


Or maybe you have it mixed up and Wilson Pickett was singing about Lindsay with "634-5789."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2apquxKKQ

[57Brave]

Maybe if some meat were provided rather than the internet's version of a bumper sticker, the response would be different...

They don't have Google in your corner of Dumb****istan ?

[Hawk]

Fixed the Nixon description.

Agree on Trump. Everyone wants the straight-talkin' type until it becomes apparent that one needs to build coalitions to get things done. Trump is the current representation of the id in the American politics. I think Rand Paul differs from his father enough that he could build a coalition. Probably not a coalition I would agree with, but a coalition nonetheless.

Nixon was certainly ruthless, but I personally treat that more as a political asset than a character flaw. I tend to discount soft leadership styles. Somebody's got to rule the roost, so to speak.

In that same vein, RE: coalitions, I'm inclined to draw (yet another, this time more loose) parallel to British politics -- specifically the Cameron/Clegg Tory/LibDem government of 2010. Unity looks great on paper until you've got conflict and then suddenly the weaker -- or less aggressive -- ends, and their ideas, are practically banished from a pivotal place in the process. Strictly from a theoretical standpoint I'd advocate for the building of an unassailable majority (Tony Blair's Labour) that allows for unilateral decision making. The ultimate balance is that if the initiatives of a strong majority government fail you are looking at a complete turnover.

Domestically, we saw the 'New Deal' coalition fall apart because the Republicans mounted a fairly streamlined, unified effort that proved too overwhelming for the fractious Democrats. Plus, the country was evolving at an insane pace -- I think we're in a similar state of 'rapid flux' now. Sometimes people gravitate to the staid. I don't know if that time is now, though.

[Hawk]

They don't have Google in your corner of Dumb****istan ?

http://media.giphy.com/media/jsnIjKo8707mw/giphy.gif

Runner up:

http://media.giphy.com/media/6fuq9xQqqiv4Y/giphy.gif

[The Chosen One]

V for Vendetta is one of my favourite guilty pleasures. That's the sort of Obama government I was hoping for that I was told would come.

[jpx7]

I was hoping for an actual socialist, like the right-wingers like to (falsely) claim Obama's been.

[50PoundHead]

Nixon was certainly ruthless, but I personally treat that more as a political asset than a character flaw. I tend to discount soft leadership styles. Somebody's got to rule the roost, so to speak.

In that same vein, RE: coalitions, I'm inclined to draw (yet another, this time more loose) parallel to British politics -- specifically the Cameron/Clegg Tory/LibDem government of 2010. Unity looks great on paper until you've got conflict and then suddenly the weaker -- or less aggressive -- ends, and their ideas, are practically banished from a pivotal place in the process. Strictly from a theoretical standpoint I'd advocate for the building of an unassailable majority (Tony Blair's Labour) that allows for unilateral decision making. The ultimate balance is that if the initiatives of a strong majority government fail you are looking at a complete turnover.

Domestically, we saw the 'New Deal' coalition fall apart because the Republicans mounted fairly streamlined, unified effort that proved too overwhelming for the fractious Democrats. Plus, the country was evolving at an insane pace -- I think we're in a similar state of 'rapid flux' now. Sometimes people gravitate to the staid. I don't know if that time is now, though.

I've been reading Arthur Schlesinger's The Imperial Presidency again and if you want to see the Constitution flaunted, Nixon was the unapologetic master. Granted, Schlesinger was a liberal who thought the Kennedy's walked on water, but he hammered Truman pretty hard in the book as well.

Nixon was the last truly liberal domestic policy president prior to Obama (who is progressive, but according to Bernie Sanders not progressive enough). Nixon extended a lot of Johnson's Great Society and really ramped up the guns-and-butter approach to government. One of Nixon's big advantages in 1968 is that he had George Wallace running from a strident states' rights position and Nixon seemed reasonable to Middle America by comparison. Humphrey was Johnson's Vice-President and he couldn't get his fingerprints off the Vietnam War, so Nixon's unspecified Plan to End the War looked more promising than more of the same. And Nixon did play the law and order card a lot. I remember an old cartoon from one of the news weeklies back then. Two guys were talking at a party. The one said to the other: "Wallace says 'crack heads.' Nixon says 'crack heads but not too hard.' Humphrey says 'crack heads but not too hard and only if they are asking for it.'" That about summed it up. Nixon could play the middle ground and he did so deftly in 1968.

Carter inherited a mess (and managed to shoot both his legs off trying to make his way around his difficult circumstances) and his presidency did fracture the Democrats and somewhat paved the way for Reagan. Carter actually tried to go to a middle ground on domestic policy and bring a lot of scientific management approaches into the development and implementation of policy (I was grad school at the time and zero-based budgeting became all the rage), which p*ssed off the New Deal coalition without going far enough to gain the embrace of conservatives. Given where we were as a country in the late-1970s, if Reagan hadn't won, he would have to have been invented. I wasn't a fan of the Reagan presidency and there was a gap between his rhetoric and his record (as there is with most folks heroes)--big deficits, Keynesian stimulus with defense spending, overall growth in government spending--but he took the alphabet soup programs of the Great Society and the Nixon administration, reduced the amounts, and sent the money out to states in the form of block grants (really bad policy in the long run in my estimation, but folks were ready for just about anything).

[acesfull86]

They don't have Google in your corner of Dumb****istan ?

...says that guy who relies on memes to make "arguments" he apparently isn't able to make for himself.

[sturg33]

He's the king of making a ridiculous post... and when someone calls him on the validity - he says "you don't have google?"

[acesfull86]

Memes have their place - I like some of them - but like I said they're the bumper sticker of the internet. I'm not going to scour the web to confirm or disprove sources, logic, and arguments when the person posting it was too lazy to show his/her own work in the first place.

[57Brave]

Below is the "meme" I take it you are referring to??


In which case, the source of the information is provided

&

The numbers is the numbers

If you don't understand them or if they confuse you or if you dispute them ------ show numbers that make the opposite point.

I could see your point if I posted "the economy sucks because ABC..."

But there is
a) numbers
b) context
c) a logical conclusion drawn from

a) numbers
b) context
////

If you disagree with the conclusion -- point out why. I might learn something .

[57Brave]

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10646748_692377537521970_5670944283951651524_n.jpg ?oh=82d7b404e0f5e7672d88b065f5a98474&oe=5645B2DC

[acesfull86]

Like I said, a bumper sticker. First how to I know those numbers were properly sourced? I can make a meme in 2 minutes, tack "US Dept of Labor" of the bottom, and pass it off as fact. To say "the numbers is the numbers" is to put a lot of faith in an outfit apparently called "occupy Democrats." Yeah, no. Then, what exactly is the point? That rising CEO pay has something to do with the 6 figures pasted above it? The author (much less you) does not offer any proof of causality.

[57Brave]

sure

[Hawk]

http://media.giphy.com/media/PFXmxJoyTNfDG/giphy.gif

[Hawk]

Nixon was the last truly liberal domestic policy president prior to Obama (who is progressive, but according to Bernie Sanders not progressive enough). Nixon extended a lot of Johnson's Great Society and really ramped up the guns-and-butter approach to government. One of Nixon's big advantages in 1968 is that he had George Wallace running from a strident states' rights position and Nixon seemed reasonable to Middle America by comparison. Humphrey was Johnson's Vice-President and he couldn't get his fingerprints off the Vietnam War, so Nixon's unspecified Plan to End the War looked more promising than more of the same. And Nixon did play the law and order card a lot. I remember an old cartoon from one of the news weeklies back then. Two guys were talking at a party. The one said to the other: "Wallace says 'crack heads.' Nixon says 'crack heads but not too hard.' Humphrey says 'crack heads but not too hard and only if they are asking for it.'" That about summed it up. Nixon could play the middle ground and he did so deftly in 1968.

1968 was a tumultuous year. You had the deaths of MLK and Bobby Kennedy, the Tet Offensive, Draft Card burnings en masse, riots on college campuses (birth of the Weathermen Underground), the out of control scene at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago ("The whole world is watching" chant on the bloody streets of Chicago). I think the nation craved order and direction at such a tense time. If you look at various polls taken across the country in 68' an almost overwhelming majority of citizens supported law enforcement, even directly in the face of rising policy brutality and excess. So it's not much of a surprise that Nixon won with Professional/White Collar types, although it is surprising that it he handily took College students. That debunked the myth that the 'youth' were universally opposed to the War, and laid the groundwork for the "Silent Majority" rhetoric that Nixon later championed.

The problem the Democrats had was mostly Vietnam -- but the party also never coalesced around a leader or a central platform. First it was McGovern (who was anti-war by an opportunistic stroke of luck), then it was Robert Kennedy (who really sparked the anti-war movement politically), then Eugene McCarthy (much like McGovern). For some baffling reason the Democrats turned back to Hubert Humphrey who was a) a supportive Veep to the guy who took the country into Vietnam b) not clearly anti-war.

The results of the election were closer than many remember (and certainly in incredibly stark contrast to 1972) -- and I actually see Wallace as having acted as more of a roadblock to Nixon in terms of the polls than a boost as you suggested.


Carter inherited a mess (and managed to shoot both his legs off trying to make his way around his difficult circumstances) and his presidency did fracture the Democrats and somewhat paved the way for Reagan. Carter actually tried to go to a middle ground on domestic policy and bring a lot of scientific management approaches into the development and implementation of policy (I was grad school at the time and zero-based budgeting became all the rage), which p*ssed off the New Deal coalition without going far enough to gain the embrace of conservatives. Given where we were as a country in the late-1970s, if Reagan hadn't won, he would have to have been invented. I wasn't a fan of the Reagan presidency and there was a gap between his rhetoric and his record (as there is with most folks heroes)--big deficits, Keynesian stimulus with defense spending, overall growth in government spending--but he took the alphabet soup programs of the Great Society and the Nixon administration, reduced the amounts, and sent the money out to states in the form of block grants (really bad policy in the long run in my estimation, but folks were ready for just about anything).

I perceive the New Deal coalition as having died in 1968 -- literally on the floor of the DNC, but it's interesting that you still see the influences up through the Carter administration and beyond.

[jpx7]

Like I said, a bumper sticker. First how to I know those numbers were properly sourced? I can make a meme in 2 minutes, tack "US Dept of Labor" of the bottom, and pass it off as fact. To say "the numbers is the numbers" is to put a lot of faith in an outfit apparently called "occupy Democrats." Yeah, no. Then, what exactly is the point? That rising CEO pay has something to do with the 6 figures pasted above it? The author (much less you) does not offer any proof of causality.

I personally think executives are vastly over-compensated, and workers—generally and across industries—are under-compensated.

Nevertheless, I also agree with some of your epistemological concerns regarding infographics. Unfortunately, a lot of people—irrespective of their biases across political spectra—are going to swallow, largely un-ruminated, stats and data couched in spiffy visuals and punctuated with a footnote, however stretched or spurious the actual sourcing might be.

[57Brave]

No one is disputing the claim!! Only the means of raising the topic
Got it.

Now you can go back to discussing the relevancy of "The Donald"

[weso1]

Donald is playing an important piece in this election cycle. I really think this is a wake up call for the GOP. I don't think Trump is getting this support strictly because of his celebrity.

[bravesnumberone]

Quite a week after seeing Chris Christie, Trump and Ricardo Perry all in person. Take this fwiw, but compared to Trump, Christie looks like every Republican's best vision of Ronald Reagan and every Democrat's best vision of the Kennedys. Pretty sad.

[bravesnumberone]

The question I haven't seen answered is who would Trump's running mate be?

Bieber?

Snoop?

A big mound of money?

[The Chosen One]

The question I haven't seen answered is who would Trump's running mate be?

Bieber?

Snoop?

A big mound of money?

Hillary Clinton. :FrediGreen:

[weso1]

The question I haven't seen answered is who would Trump's running mate be?

Bieber?

Snoop?

A big mound of money?

I'm pretty sure he's already announced that his hair would be VP.

[50PoundHead]

1968 was a tumultuous year. You had the deaths of MLK and Bobby Kennedy, the Tet Offensive, Draft Card burnings en masse, riots on college campuses (birth of the Weathermen Underground), the out of control scene at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago ("The whole world is watching" chant on the bloody streets of Chicago). I think the nation craved order and direction at such a tense time. If you look at various polls taken across the country in 68' an almost overwhelming majority of citizens supported law enforcement, even directly in the face of rising policy brutality and excess. So it's not much of a surprise that Nixon won with Professional/White Collar types, although it is surprising that it he handily took College students. That debunked the myth that the 'youth' were universally opposed to the War, and laid the groundwork for the "Silent Majority" rhetoric that Nixon later championed.

The problem the Democrats had was mostly Vietnam -- but the party also never coalesced around a leader or a central platform. First it was McGovern (who was anti-war by an opportunistic stroke of luck), then it was Robert Kennedy (who really sparked the anti-war movement politically), then Eugene McCarthy (much like McGovern). For some baffling reason the Democrats turned back to Hubert Humphrey who was a) a supportive Veep to the guy who took the country into Vietnam b) not clearly anti-war.

The results of the election were closer than many remember (and certainly in incredibly stark contrast to 1972) -- and I actually see Wallace as having acted as more of a roadblock to Nixon in terms of the polls than a boost as you suggested.



I perceive the New Deal coalition as having died in 1968 -- literally on the floor of the DNC, but it's interesting that you still see the influences up through the Carter administration and beyond.

1968 is the first campaign in which I was truly aware (15 years old) and you're right in that it was an extremely tumultuous time. The assassinations. McCarthy winning New Hampshire against a sitting President (I think you have your timeline a bit reversed. McGovern stayed on the sidelines--although he considered a candidacy early--until after Robert Kennedy was assassinated). The 1968 Democratic convention with Richard Daley going bat-crap on Abraham Ribicoff on the convention floor. A lot of tension and spectacle throughout the year. I think an argument can be made either way on the Wallace effect. Wallace carried four Goldwater states from 1964 (Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana) and Arkansas (he didn't carry South Carolina) and while opposition to the Civil Rights Act and other Federal efforts had begun to turn the South Republican, I think those states would have been toss-ups. Where Wallace may have had a bigger effect was in stealing votes from both candidates in closely contested states, but in the 13 states in which Wallace garnered mor than 10% of the vote (arbitrary level chosen by me), Nixon won 10 of those states and if you look at Wallace's showing in a strong Labor state like Michigan, you can see the New Deal coalition and the birth of the Reagan Democrat begin to take shape (more on that later). Nixon did break 300 electoral votes without the Wallace states, but I remember going to bed not knowing who the next President was going to be as Missouri and a couple of other states remained in the balance. One interesting thing looking at the 1968 results, Texas went Democratic and California went Republican.

The New Deal coalition started to peter out beginning in 1964 with he passage of the Civil Rights Act. It's important to remember that although many Southern Democrats had a states' rights view of the world and fought against Federal desegregation efforts, they also supported elements of the New Deal and the South benefited greatly from the New Deal. They were very effective in bringing Federal projects to the South and they usually kept the spending pump going on the programs that benefited them and their constituents. But the Civil Rights Act in the South and the Vietnam War and the Great Society in the North started to fray the New Deal coalition. I think the culmination of the disintegration came with Reagan's re-election in 1984 when he thumped Walter Mondale, who was the last New Deal liberal to run for President. I was indirectly involved in the Mondale campaign and they were constantly worrying about John Glenn and I kept saying, "Gary Hart. Gary Hart. Gary Hart." It's interesting that 48 years later, the challenge to the Democratic front-runner is coming decidedly from the left as opposed to the center. There was a "new" Democrat vs. "old" Democrat tug-of-war, part of it regional, part of it generational, and part of it philosophical that took place throughout the period from 1964 to 1984 (of course, Democrats have always been a scrappy, diverse bunch going way back) perhaps best personified by the Tip O'Neill/Jimmy Carter fracas during Carter's tenure. Ted Kennedy challenged Carter (from the perspective of the traditional New Deal left). I agree that the influence of the New Deal coalition was waning from 1964 onward, but the Reagan landslide in 1984 put an exclamation point on its demise. I think both parties have been scrambling ever since trying to figure things out. The South is solidly Republican now and California and New York solidly Democratic, but it has become increasingly difficult to pidgeonhole the rest of the country.

[Runnin]

From Salon: What Trump's surging popularity says about the GOP base (http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/donald_trump_is_an_actual_fascist_what_his_surging _popularity_says_about_the_gop_base/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
So is the GOP becoming the new fascist party? That might be an exaggeration, but it does share many similar features, and Trump, with his demagogic style, is simply exposing how very similar the passions of the GOP base are to the passions of fascism of the early 20th century.

"The modern GOP is a party of unwavering and dogmatic patriotism mixed with traditionalism and intolerance. The social progression we have been witnessing over the past decade in America, most clearly with the acceptance of the LGBT community, seems to be triggering a reactionary movement on the right. We see this most recently with the religious freedom controversies and the angry protests of the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Fascism of the early 20th century was also largely a negative reaction to modernity (in a social sense at least; fascists did tend to worship technology). Communism, which was the ultimate evil to fascists, promoted the destruction of traditional institutions such as the family, the bourgeois state and organized religion. In some ways, fascism was the conservative answer to communism — the defender of tradition."

[AerchAngel]

I wonder if The Don switch parties, what would happen and Hillary is his VP?

[Runnin]

I wonder if The Don switch parties, what would happen and Hillary is his VP?
He would do that in a heartbeat if there were a reason to do so, but his followers are clearly among the GOP and independents.

[weso1]

From Salon: What Trump's surging popularity says about the GOP base (http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/donald_trump_is_an_actual_fascist_what_his_surging _popularity_says_about_the_gop_base/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
So is the GOP becoming the new fascist party? That might be an exaggeration, but it does share many similar features, and Trump, with his demagogic style, is simply exposing how very similar the passions of the GOP base are to the passions of fascism of the early 20th century.

"The modern GOP is a party of unwavering and dogmatic patriotism mixed with traditionalism and intolerance. The social progression we have been witnessing over the past decade in America, most clearly with the acceptance of the LGBT community, seems to be triggering a reactionary movement on the right. We see this most recently with the religious freedom controversies and the angry protests of the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Fascism of the early 20th century was also largely a negative reaction to modernity (in a social sense at least; fascists did tend to worship technology). Communism, which was the ultimate evil to fascists, promoted the destruction of traditional institutions such as the family, the bourgeois state and organized religion. In some ways, fascism was the conservative answer to communism — the defender of tradition."

So is the GOP becoming the new fascist party? That might be an exaggeration

Uh... you think?

[AerchAngel]

He would do that in a heartbeat if there were a reason to do so, but his followers are clearly among the GOP and independents.

Independents love him. I am indifferent, because there are things I like about him and other things I don't. He has my attention though.

There is a lot of liberalism that the Conservatives do not like in him. He hates Common Core education and outsourcing of jobs, this is what made me want to pay attention to him. My number one thing I want any president to do is bring our jobs, especially manufacturing back to America where it belongs. That is where the middle class is losing their people. Both parties now are not doing anything about it.

[Hawk]

So is the GOP becoming the new fascist party? That might be an exaggeration

Uh... you think?

Usually when people struggle to explain their definition of fascism beyond 'demagogue' 'passions' and 'patriotism' then they have no clue what the concept actually represents and are just trying to use it as an insult.

http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/03/fascism-a-useful-insult/

George Orwell (in 1946): “The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable”

It is interesting, although nobody ever wants to actually admit it: Fascism, historically, has been leaps and bounds more successful than Communism.

[Runnin]

Sounds like you guys didn't read the article.

"Giovanni Gentile, the “philosopher of fascism” and ghostwriter for Mussolini, said of the definition of fascism in the Encyclopedia of Italiana: “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” This definition may very well fit the GOP ideology: a kind of corporate fascism, where large corporations have the ultimate power; where the politicians spew a hateful, intolerant ideology based on “traditional” values, on a platform funded by corporate interests, elected by the people to serve those very corporate interests; and deny environmental degradation because it would be unprofitable for the funders to do anything about it, using the anti-intellectual hostility to convince the people that it is nothing more than a left-wing conspiracy."

America seems to have a kind of closet fascism, with both the Rep and Dem parties mostly guided by corporate interests.

[Hawk]

America may be guided by corporate interests, but the author's reconstructed definition of fascism is still inaccurate and clearly used in a pejorative sense in relation to the GOP base.

It's interesting that he talks about Trump stoking these kind of latent demagogic flames, but then circles around to 'platform funded by corporate interests', which is the antithesis of Trump's campaign.

The article was a miscarried hit piece, IMO.

[AerchAngel]

Sounds like you guys didn't read the article.

"Giovanni Gentile, the “philosopher of fascism” and ghostwriter for Mussolini, said of the definition of fascism in the Encyclopedia of Italiana: “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” This definition may very well fit the GOP ideology: a kind of corporate fascism, where large corporations have the ultimate power; where the politicians spew a hateful, intolerant ideology based on “traditional” values, on a platform funded by corporate interests, elected by the people to serve those very corporate interests; and deny environmental degradation because it would be unprofitable for the funders to do anything about it, using the anti-intellectual hostility to convince the people that it is nothing more than a left-wing conspiracy."

America seems to have a kind of closet fascism, with both the Rep and Dem parties mostly guided by corporate interests.

This is the main problem with Americans, both Dems and Reps are responsible of it.

This I would vote for a Carson or Trump, they are not embolden with these entities. I just wish there was a Dem that own this but they are too stupid to go this way....their pound the rich with taxes, or make too much money approach is never going to fly, EVER. Carson and Trump don't need special interest and that why both parties try to silence them, because both parties need that interest to make a lot of money on our dime.

[Hawk]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-26/trump-leads-gop-candidates-in-new-hampshire-nbc-news-marist

New polls out Sunday show presidential candidate and real estate mogul Donald Trump still ahead among Republican hopefuls, even amid fallout from his controversial comments about Arizona Senator John McCain a week ago.

A CNN/ORC poll out Sunday showed Trump leading the pack with 18 percent support among likely Republican voters nationwide, with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in second place at 15 percent. And crucially, Trump's doing well in early-nominating states, two new NBC-Marist polls show. A New Hampshire poll had Trump leading with 21 percent. In Iowa, Trump is in second place, with 17 percent support, to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with 19 percent.

---

Pundit fail. Take the nails out of the coffin for another week.

[Runnin]

America may be guided by corporate interests, but the author's reconstructed definition of fascism is still inaccurate and clearly used in a pejorative sense in relation to the GOP base.

It's interesting that he talks about Trump stoking these kind of latent demagogic flames, but then circles around to 'platform funded by corporate interests', which is the antithesis of Trump's campaign.

The article was a miscarried hit piece, IMO.
Reconstructed definition? From Mussolini's speech writer is not reconstructed. I though the piece was pretty fair and its author avoided personal commentary...mostly. But I think a Trump presidency would be a train wreck of diplomacy and terrible for America and the world. One has to admit that this latest version of Trump looks more like a dictator than a President.

Does it feel like the American electorate is moving to the left (at least demographically), while the government and corporate power continues to move to the right?

[Hawk]

Reconstructed definition? From Mussolini's speech writer is not reconstructed. I though the piece was pretty fair and its author avoided personal commentary...mostly. But I think a Trump presidency would be a train wreck of diplomacy and terrible for America and the world. One has to admit that this latest version of Trump looks more like a dictator than a President.

Does it feel like the American electorate is moving to the left (at least demographically), while the government and corporate power continues to move to the right?

If the piece is fair, then so is my belief that Obama is a socialist.

The Italians (or Mussolini's speech writer) didn't invent Nationalism -- although they did fail at it with respect to Fascism.

[jpx7]

It is interesting, although nobody ever wants to actually admit it: Fascism, historically, has been leaps and bounds more successful than Communism.

To be fair, however, fascism never really got the extended run communism (in its various permutations) did, so it's a bit hard to soundly ground or thoroughly substantiate that historical comparison.

I personally think Italian fascism had a lot better chance of long-term success than German fascism—but, leaving that aside, the experiments with both communism and fascism we saw were largely opportunistic, relatively short-sighted, extreme-statist solutions to (being overly broad here) nineteenth-century power-structures meeting twentieth-century social realities.

[weso1]

To be fair, however, fascism never really got the extended run communism (in its various permutations) did, so it's a bit hard to soundly ground or thoroughly substantiate that historical comparison.

I personally think Italian fascism had a lot better chance of long-term success than German fascism—but, leaving that aside, the experiments with both communism and fascism we saw were largely opportunistic, relatively short-sighted, extreme-statist solutions to (being overly broad here) nineteenth-century power-structures meeting twentieth-century social realities.

You looked that up on wikepedia. Admit it.

[jpx7]

You looked that up on wikepedia. Admit it.

I actually pulled those two paragraphs out of my ass—but I did wiki Giovanni Gentile.

[Runnin]

but, leaving that aside, the experiments with both communism and fascism we saw were largely opportunistic, relatively short-sighted, extreme-statist solutions to (being overly broad here) nineteenth-century power-structures meeting twentieth-century social realities.I thought the article painted Trump pretty savvy to know this nationalistic rhetoric would work in the current political climate.

[Hawk]

To be fair, however, fascism never really got the extended run communism (in its various permutations) did, so it's a bit hard to soundly ground or thoroughly substantiate that historical comparison.

I personally think Italian fascism had a lot better chance of long-term success than German fascism—but, leaving that aside, the experiments with both communism and fascism we saw were largely opportunistic, relatively short-sighted, extreme-statist solutions to (being overly broad here) nineteenth-century power-structures meeting twentieth-century social realities.

I typed another response to this but my browser refreshed and lost it.

The bullets:

- The essence of government is constantly evolving -- there's not a particular system that we can really treat in isolation as having received the kind of long-term stasis you allude to.
- A better qualifier might be European Fascism / Marxist (Leninist) Communism.
- But even still, can't discount that Communism has never been fully realized (and, broadly, that's due to Capitalism).

---

RE: Italian Fascism

- Yes, culturally -- Nazism had a weird and overreaching obsession with 'purging' the state of certain mindsets (and people). Italian Fascism tended to embrace it as long as it didn't interfere with the governmental status quo.
- Economically, though, Nazism was much more adept at intervening on the state level and enjoyed historically unparalleled financial success under circumstances which were not remotely conducive to growth.
- I tend to believe, based primarily on the economic tactics witnessed in Germany, but also on the virtually impermeable solidity of their authoritarian structure, that Nazism would've enjoyed a longer shelf-life had Hitler not been a militarily inept megalomaniac who thought he could succeed in a 3-front World War (acknowledging, of course, that expansion is a component of Fascism).

[Hawk]

I thought the article painted Trump pretty savvy to know this nationalistic rhetoric would work in the current political climate.

I think you might be slightly misreading why people are interested Trump (at least according to the most recent polling data): he represents anti-establishment sentiment. I guess I don't see 'let's make our country great again' as a uniquely nationalist comment.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/27/politics/donald-trump-cnn-orc-poll-2016/index.html

CNN/ORC Poll finds that just 30% of registered voters nationwide say they feel their views are well represented by the government in Washington, while 40% say they are not represented well at all. That figure spikes among Republican and Republican-leaning voters. Among GOP voters, 53% say they don't feel their views are well represented in Washington at all, nearly double the 27% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who feel the same way.

---

Same poll has Trump ahead of Hillary 50-46%. That's pretty incredible.

[jpx7]

I typed another response to this but my browser refreshed and lost it.

That's too bad; I wouldn't have minded reading a few more words on the matter.


The essence of government is constantly evolving -- there's not a particular system that we can really treat in isolation as having received the kind of long-term stasis you allude to.

I don't disagree—but that seems to make your initial assertion ("Fascism, historically, has been leaps and bounds more successful than Communism.") just as precarious as my qualification of it.


A better qualifier might be European Fascism / Marxist (Leninist) Communism.

Sure.


But even still, can't discount that Communism has never been fully realized (and, broadly, that's due to Capitalism).

Totally agree. Capitalism is a pretty insidious weed—which is not to say I think communism, qua Marxist* (or, especially, Leninst, or Maoist) dogma, works. I'm just a skeptic, and particularly a capital skeptic.

*(I do think Marx had good insights into alterity and alienation; less so history.)


RE: Italian Fascism

- Yes, culturally -- Nazism had a weird and overreaching obsession with 'purging' the state of certain mindsets (and people). Italian Fascism tended to embrace it as long as it didn't interfere with the governmental status quo.
- Economically, though, Nazism was much more adept at intervening on the state level and enjoyed historically unparalleled financial success under circumstances which were not remotely conducive to growth.
- I tend to believe, based primarily on the economic tactics witnessed in Germany, but also on the virtually impermeable solidity of their authoritarian structure, that Nazism would've enjoyed a longer shelf-life had Hitler not been a militarily inept megalomaniac who thought he could succeed in a 3-front World War (acknowledging, of course, that expansion is a component of Fascism).

I'm forming and substantiating my opinion largely as a cultural observer; I simply don't have the background in economics to convincingly argue my point solely on those grounds.

I do likewise think Mussolini was a much better demagogue than Hitler—or, perhaps I should say, a demagogue better positioned for long-term success in his context—and that weighs heavily in my analysis. To wit: there are two Mussolinis in the Italian consciousness, but there is only one Hitler in the German consciousness (and, again, I'm over-generalizing—but less so, this time).

[Runnin]

http://trumpthemovie.com/
the documentary
Trump: What's the Deal?

[The Chosen One]

Listening to Trump on Morning Joe.

Good god I may actually consider voting for him just because of the fact everyone else is a professional politician.

Last night's debate, you could tell the Don was just mouthing off and everybody else had prepared one liner answer zingers. I'm surprised how well he defended himself against Kelly.

The fact he actually supported single payer at one point, he may actually support it again if the country keeps moving that direction.

He may sound like an idiot on other things, but you cannot deny his honest answers are refreshing. We need more Trumps running to make the establishment **** itself.

[Runnin]

"blood coming out of her wherever" (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-megyn-kelly-comment/index.html)

OMG x 1000

[50PoundHead]

I didn't watch the debate, but in reading all the recaps, I started to get the impression that he's setting himself up for a third party run. A lot will depend on if his poll numbers among Republican voters holds and the convention, led by the establishment, goes in a different direction.

[The Chosen One]

I didn't watch the debate, but in reading all the recaps, I started to get the impression that he's setting himself up for a third party run. A lot will depend on if his poll numbers among Republican voters holds and the convention, led by the establishment, goes in a different direction.

What a guy. Helping make sure Hillary or the Dems win.

[50PoundHead]

What a guy. Helping make sure Hillary or the Dems win.

I don't think Trump has allegiance to anyone but Trump in the same way Perot had allegiance to no one but Perot. I think the differences are that the political landscape is much different now than it was in 1992 so the candidacies of Trump and Perot take on different shapes and that Trump really doesn't like anyone on either side of the spectrum. I saw something similar up close in Minnesota when Jesse Ventura won the gubernatorial race on somewhat of a fluke. I don't see the Donald winning if he does run as a third party candidate because a national race is a completely different genus and species than a statewide race, but I wouldn't be surprised if he outpaced Perot's numbers.

[weso1]

I don't know what to think about Trump anymore. I'm not sure anyone knows what to think. Hannity is pretty close to Trump and he seems to think Trump is just using the third party threat for leverage. I still think Trump is going to have a problem getting over his unfavorabilities, but I mean at this point you have to think he actually has a shot to win the republican nomination.

[50PoundHead]

I don't know what to think about Trump anymore. I'm not sure anyone knows what to think. Hannity is pretty close to Trump and he seems to think Trump is just using the third party threat for leverage. I still think Trump is going to have a problem getting over his unfavorabilities, but I mean at this point you have to think he actually has a shot to win the republican nomination.

He has a real shot and maybe the third-party threat plays into that. I can see him setting up the argument against his Republican opponents that all they care about is Israel and fetuses and that he is taking a larger view of the challenges facing the country. That plays to a really base level and I don't know if the angry white guy voting bloc can be sufficiently mobilized to rack up enough delegates. But if the Republicans reject him, I think he will try to portray the Republican party as too narrow to lead and that only someone like him can save the country. The answer to whether or not that results in a third-party run is in the wind.

[Runnin]

I don't think he has a snowball's chance to win the nomination or the election. A lot of people that poll for him now can't be serious, can they? Can people really be that daft? Or maybe I'm the daft one but I think he'd be completely ineffective working out of the straight-jacket of the Oval Office and would want to quit within the first month. He'd fire half the government, alienate the country and end up being strangled by a cabinet member or killed by a Secret Service agent. People think he's smart because he's rich and knows how to use money and audacity to make more money, but that's not the kind of intelligence the office of President requires.

The real question is is he smart enough to know how ill suited he is for the job? I think he is and I also think he doesn't even really want the job. He's just drawn to the bright lights of the campaign like a moth to a flame. The fact that he can get this deep into the presidential conversation shows how messed up the election process is. He's got nothing but money and balls. That should be his campaign slogan - "TRUMP in '16. Nuthin' but MONEY AND BALLS, but that's enough!"

[Runnin]

Trump can call Megyn Kelly whatever he wants but the fact is she and Roger Ailes played him like a chump, Trump the chump. It took 24 hours for the bait to take hold but it finally got him. And it appears that he never saw it coming.

[bravesnumberone]

Meanwhile, the rest of the stage blew it when they didn't immediately pounce on Trump's reported sexism.

[50PoundHead]

This is from Sunday's Minneapolis StarTribune and continues on the angle I talked about a few days ago. Trump is trying to mine a vein in the populous that's angry and not politically attached. His verbal gaffes are likely hastening his exit from he Republican side of the stage, but I think part of his goal all along has been portraying his Republican rivals as being out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans (which is fairly ironic given Trump's bio) and then making an exit on his own terms to a third-party movement. Ventura's victory in Minnesota was largely an accident (and his debate performance rivaled Trump's from the other evening in terms of ludicrous statements), but Minnesota is one state and not an entire nation. Trump would have to build some type of organization in all of the states to be successful and that takes hands-and-feet as much as money and advertisements. Not to say Trump couldn't totally screw it up for the Republican presidential candidate (but a Trump third-party candidacy may actually help the Republicans in congressional races by bringing more conservatives to the polls), but I wonder if he gets to Perot's numbers if he does run.

StarTribune Link: http://www.startribune.com/trump-like-ventura-dudes-your-day-has-come-again/321097881/

PS--Runnin, I agree that he might not want to win. I had the same impression watching Ventura run (and win unexpectedly) in Minnesota in 1998. He had a radio show and I think all he wanted to do was lose a close race to give himself the catbird's seat to criticize the winner and boost his ratings in the process. Trump's ultimate goal may be to position himself in a position where he can do the same to some extent (although he doesn't have a radio show) and increase his brand recognition (whatever that might be). In that sense, his attack on Megyn Kelly may be as calculated as Fox's zeroing in on him the other night).

[Runnin]

PS--Runnin, I agree that he might not want to win. I had the same impression watching Ventura run (and win unexpectedly) in Minnesota in 1998.... Trump's ............... attack on Megyn Kelly may be as calculated as Fox's zeroing in on him the other night).
I think the job is A LOT harder and more demanding than people realize. Though it would never be worth it, it'd be funny to see what Trump's hair would look like after 4 years.

[BedellBrave]

He has a real shot and maybe the third-party threat plays into that. I can see him setting up the argument against his Republican opponents that all they care about is Israel and fetuses and that he is taking a larger view of the challenges facing the country. That plays to a really base level and I don't know if the angry white guy voting bloc can be sufficiently mobilized to rack up enough delegates. But if the Republicans reject him, I think he will try to portray the Republican party as too narrow to lead and that only someone like him can save the country. The answer to whether or not that results in a third-party run is in the wind.


Downgrading the outrage over the PP killing of babies and selling their organs ain't a winner. Then again in this country now, maybe it is.

[sturg33]

Rand Paul with a scathing op-ed on the Don. LINK (http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/08/246266-dont-fall-for-a-fake-conservative/)


I ran for office because I was tired of being misled by Republicans who promised conservative government and gave us bank bailouts and more debt. The Wall Street bankers got richer and the American taxpayer got poorer.

The Tea Party erupted over dissatisfaction with false conservatives. It amazes me that anyone in the Tea Party movement could possibly consider Clinton/Reid/Pelosi supporter Donald Trump for President.

I honestly have no idea what Mr. Trump’s real philosophy is. He was liberal before he was conservative, and has openly professed for decades that his views are those of a Democrat.

In 1990, he said if he ever ran for office, he’d do better as a Democrat. He became an independent briefly in 1999 before he switched back to registering as a Democrat. In 2004, he identified more of his beliefs as those of a Democrat, especially on economic policy, stating on CNN that“it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.” He only registered as a Republican in 2009 before dropping the party again in 2011, only to re-register in 2012.

This is a guy who said in 1999 that he was a strong supporter of the United Nations. He was for partial birth abortion before he was against it. He lavished praise on the bank bailouts. He was for Obamacare before he was against it and has said he’s “liberal on health care.”

In the debate, I reminded Trump that conservatives in the GOP have spent decades opposing a single-payer system like the socialized medicine of Canada and England. He responded that I hadn’t heard his answer. The problem is, I had heard his answer and, like many of his answers, it made absolutely no sense. What I heard was that he was once for a single-payer system—today, he’s against Obamacare but still kind of likes the concept of single-payer and isn’t sure it works.

No conservative in America supports a single-payer government-run healthcare system, and yet around 25 percent of Republicans seem to favor Trump. How can this be possible? How can a quarter of the GOP support a guy who was a Republican, then an Independent, then a Democrat, and then a Republican again?

Are conservatives really willing to gamble about what Donald Trump really believes in?

It is refreshing to hear someone speak truth to power, to transcend Washington-speak, and cut through the staidness of our politically correct world but not when it is all blather, non-sequitur, and self-aggrandizing bombast.

Donald Trump is showing he isn’t suited to lead the country, and I think we all need to discuss why.

Frankly, it sounds too much like he is someone used to bullying to get his way. What do you do to a bully? You stand up to him. That’s what I did on the debate stage, and I was the only one.

The only one to tell Donald Trump that if he is willing to possibly give the election to Hillary, he shouldn’t be on the stage. That should be our first and uniting principle.

We don’t need a bully, and we don’t need another President who thinks he is King. We certainly don’t need someone who has driven his companies into bankruptcy four times yet smugly tells us he uses our nation’s Chapter 11 laws to his own personal advantage. All well and good for him – but what of the creditors and vendors he defaulted on?

Voters are hungry for a plain-spoken critique of Washington. But I’m unsure how credible that voice is when it comes from the consummate insider, a man who buys and sells politicians like he does Lamborghinis.

Trump has paid over 1.5 million dollars to politicians from both sides of the aisle, from Harry Reid to Rahm Emanuel to Jeb Bush. The majority of his donations were to Democrats until a few years ago when he began thinking more seriously of making a play for the Republican nomination.

(For the record, Donald Trump has NEVER donated to any of my political campaigns, perhaps because he knows I can’t be bought. He has donated to an eye institute that sponsored the medical mission I took to Guatemala where the funding was directly spent on our surgical work restoring sight to over 200 men and women.)

He has, however, put a significant down payment on Hillary Clinton—at least a $100,000 investment in the Clinton “Foundation” in addition to repeated donations to her campaigns—and acknowledges he spoke to Bill Clinton before he decided to pursue the Republican nomination. What kind of access was he purchasing?

I asked him in the debate why he’s hedging his bets. If he doesn’t win the GOP nomination will he support Clinton? Will he run as a third party candidate? Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. Will Trump give us Hillary Clinton?

Why give so much money to both sides?

That’s the problem with the system. Big Government and Big Business get in bed together, and the ordinary taxpayer ends up with the short end of the stick while our country is driven deeper into debt.

I for one don’t think you should run for President if you believe what Trump says about money in politics: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

Isn’t this buying and selling what’s wrong with Washington?

Bill Clinton is under fire for accepting donations and high speaking fees from foreign governments while Hillary served as Secretary of State. I think it’s despicable that politicians like Hillary sell access. But isn’t it equally despicable for people like Trump to buy access?

It makes me sad to think that Tea Party awakening could be hijacked or hoodwinked by a guy who supported the bank bailouts, supported Obamacare, and continues to support the Clintons.

I was there at the first Tea Party in 2007 and I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand passively by and watch the movement destroyed by a fake conservative.

I will stand up to anyone, Republican or Democrat, who tries to use government as their own personal piggy bank and I won’t be bought or sold.

I will run this race on issues important to the American people. Unlike Trump, I have serious, specific proposals for the largest tax cut in American history and a five-year balanced budget. I offer real solutions to defeat the Washington Machine like ending corporate welfare, term limits and forcing Congress to read the bills.

We owe the American people substantive answers like that, not bluster and bombast. I plan to stand up to anyone who doesn’t have the temperament or ideas to be President. Maybe it’s time for the GOP voters to tell Mr. Trump he’s fired so we can find a serious candidate who will bring real change.

[57Brave]

Where Sen Paul see's the "Conservative" Movement as a monolith.

If Bill Clinton is fuel for electoral fire what about Clarence Thomas' wife working for the Kochs who Thomas without recusing himself sits in judgement.
I fortunately can't remember her name
////////

Ginny. As in "carry me back ... "

[BedellBrave]

Where Sen Paul see's the "Conservative" Movement as a monolith.

If Bill Clinton is fuel for electoral fire what about Clarence Thomas' wife working for the Kochs who Thomas without recusing himself sits in judgement.
I fortunately can't remember her name
////////

Ginny. As in "carry me back ... "


^^^ A classic 57 post. It has everything. :-)

[BedellBrave]

"Trump is a sham, of course, but for many Americans in 2015 the whole political process is a sham. Trump, however, is an entertaining sham, and some voters think that if the establishment is going to screw you no matter what you do, you might as well vote for the funny one."

Mead may be on to something. Link (http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/11/making-sense-of-trumpian-populism/)

[goldfly]

"Trump is a sham, of course, but for many Americans in 2015 the whole political process is a sham. Trump, however, is an entertaining sham, and some voters think that if the establishment is going to screw you no matter what you do, you might as well vote for the funny one."

Mead may be on to something. Link (http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/11/making-sense-of-trumpian-populism/)

For people that hate Hollywood. They sure love me when they have a R next to their name

Let's assume all of that is 100% true that you quoted

That is some childish **** when it comes to nuclear weapons, being in charge of wars etc etc etc

[weso1]

I don't think he has a snowball's chance to win the nomination or the election. A lot of people that poll for him now can't be serious, can they? Can people really be that daft? Or maybe I'm the daft one but I think he'd be completely ineffective working out of the straight-jacket of the Oval Office and would want to quit within the first month. He'd fire half the government, alienate the country and end up being strangled by a cabinet member or killed by a Secret Service agent. People think he's smart because he's rich and knows how to use money and audacity to make more money, but that's not the kind of intelligence the office of President requires.

The real question is is he smart enough to know how ill suited he is for the job? I think he is and I also think he doesn't even really want the job. He's just drawn to the bright lights of the campaign like a moth to a flame. The fact that he can get this deep into the presidential conversation shows how messed up the election process is. He's got nothing but money and balls. That should be his campaign slogan - "TRUMP in '16. Nuthin' but MONEY AND BALLS, but that's enough!"

I hope you are right, but as time goes by I'm just not sure.

[BedellBrave]

For people that hate Hollywood. They sure love me when they have a R next to their name

Let's assume all of that is 100% true that you quoted

That is some childish **** when it comes to nuclear weapons, being in charge of wars etc etc etc


Do you actually think we've got a mature electorate? You may have more faith in the electorate than I do.

[weso1]

For people that hate Hollywood. They sure love me when they have a R next to their name

Let's assume all of that is 100% true that you quoted

That is some childish **** when it comes to nuclear weapons, being in charge of wars etc etc etc

Is it a "R" or an "R"? jpx?

[weso1]

The thing I'll say about Trump is that if he had a realistic filter he would be a great candidate. That's why he's winning. He's an incredibly great candidate outside of the huge flaw that he has, which is that he's a gigantic douche bag. But other than that he's got the "it" factor, he's got the authoritative presence and he has the brains. But he's a freakin clown. And I just can't get behind the idea of a clown as my republican choice.

[sturg33]

The thing I'll say about Trump is that if he had a realistic filter he would be a great candidate. That's why he's winning. He's an incredibly great candidate outside of the huge flaw that he has, which is that he's a gigantic douche bag. But other than that he's got the "it" factor, he's got the authoritative presence and he has the brains. But he's a freakin clown. And I just can't get behind the idea of a clown as my republican choice.

If he ever decides to talk specific policy, I'm certain he will be a disaster.

[weso1]

If he ever decides to talk specific policy, I'm certain he will be a disaster.

You would think, but I don't know. He's intelligent enough to come up with a solid policy. I just don't know what to think about Trump. It's fascinating to watch.

[Runnin]

I was not referring to hormones or menstruation, period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks_240VM1WI

[Runnin]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tp.jpg

[57Brave]

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11846764_10207237868725937_4687496789323774168_n.j pg?oh=db973e90acda40cd42e2dc6fc9d4be96&oe=5637A7BE

[Oklahomahawk]

I was not referring to hormones or menstruation, period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks_240VM1WI

Is that Barry Manilow???

[Oklahomahawk]

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11846764_10207237868725937_4687496789323774168_n.j pg?oh=db973e90acda40cd42e2dc6fc9d4be96&oe=5637A7BE

ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Krgrecw]

For all the crap that Trump gets for coming across like an asshole, ever notice how his numerous employees or the people that he does business dont say negative things about him?

[acesfull86]

You would think, but I don't know. He's intelligent enough to come up with a solid policy. I just don't know what to think about Trump. It's fascinating to watch.


I agree that he is intelligent enough to come up with policy, but I don't understand how anyone could trust the guy. He's a Democrat calling himself a Republican. The ultimate opportunist. He makes other politicians appear to have integrity.

[Chipper]

Trump vs. Bernie 2016!!! Can't wait for it!

[Dalyn]

Is it a "R" or an "R"? jpx?

It's all about the sound. An is correct.

[50PoundHead]

If he ever decides to talk specific policy, I'm certain he will be a disaster.

Right now, he's basking in the not, as in "I'm not one of those guys." Every cycle seems to have an outsider or two (or three). It could be said that Obama capitalized a bit on the same angst and desire for difference among the voters. I think the Donald will remain vague as long as he can, but he has uttered phrases like "boots on the ground in the Middle East" and he's been really vocal on immigration, so it's not like he's remaining at 30,000 feet on everything. I think his biggest challenge remains putting together a viable campaign organization that will go beyond his personality. There's a lot of nuts and bolts to the enterprise and I frankly don't know what he's got in that department.

[50PoundHead]

Is it a "R" or an "R"? jpx?

http://i2.cpcache.com/nocache/product_zoom/487734185/arr_pirate_thermos_food_jar.jpg?color=Black&padToSquare=true

I think he meant this.

[Dalyn]

http://i2.cpcache.com/nocache/product_zoom/487734185/arr_pirate_thermos_food_jar.jpg?color=Black&padToSquare=true

I think he meant this.

https://i.imgur.com/MDNCceS.gif

[Runnin]

I agree that he is intelligent enough to come up with policy, but I don't understand how anyone could trust the guy. He's a Democrat calling himself a Republican. The ultimate opportunist. He makes other politicians appear to have integrity.
Donald is hard at work channeling his likeable side, agreeing with almost anything people say. If he could start talking more like a politician and like he understood policy, even just a little, he could really make 'em squirm.

[Krgrecw]

I agree that he is intelligent enough to come up with policy, but I don't understand how anyone could trust the guy. He's a Democrat calling himself a Republican. The ultimate opportunist. He makes other politicians appear to have integrity.




Anyone different Than Bernie calling himself a democrat after years of saying he wasn't one?

[goldfly]

For all the crap that Trump gets for coming across like an asshole, ever notice how his numerous employees or the people that he does business dont say negative things about him?


Are you thing to be serious?

[acesfull86]

Anyone different Than Bernie calling himself a democrat after years of saying he wasn't one?

Maybe not, but I wouldn't vote for Sanders in a million years either.

[goldfly]

Anyone different Than Bernie calling himself a democrat after years of saying he wasn't one?

He has always caucused with democrats

Just doesn't think overall you should be tied to a party over country

Shocking thought

[Krgrecw]

He has always caucused with democrats




Just doesn't think overall you should be tied to a party over country

Shocking thought


Why doesn't he just announce that he'll run third party then? He's said numerous times that he wasn't a democrat. So why is he tying himself to a party?

[The Chosen One]

Why doesn't he just announce that he'll run third party then? He's said numerous times that he wasn't a democrat. So why is he tying himself to a party?

For the same reason Ron Paul ran as a libertarian and republican on different occasions.

Bernie agrees with Dems on a lot of issues, so it doesn't matter. He's doing it because it gives him the best chance of trying to win anything.

Why haven't the Tea Party guys just formed a new party? They have their own caucus, why not just completely abandon the Republican Party and just call themselves the Tea Party?

[yeezus]

we call ourselves a democracy and we're not, so i don't really care what someone calls themselves.

[acesfull86]

Sanders might be calling himself something different, but he isn't doing a 180 when it comes to what he stands for. Trump was for massive tax increases on the rich, was for single-payer HC, was strongly pro-choice, donated millions to Democrats, the list goes on and on. The only reason he is running as a Rep and not a Dem is because he is an opportunist, not because he had some sort of ideological rebirth. Two years from now he'll be a Dem, then a Green, then a Communist, then maybe a Rep again...whatever he happens to feel like that day.

The sad part is how many Republicans the guy has hoodwinked when he is so obviously a fraud. Doesn't say much for those people, quity frankly.

[Hawk]

Donald Trump has a better chance at becoming President than Bernie Sanders. People need to get off the pipe, either way.

[The Chosen One]

Donald Trump has a better chance at becoming President than Bernie Sanders. People need to get off the pipe, either way.

Idk. If it was Trump vs. Bernie in the general I'm almost certain the country takes Bernie.

[Hawk]

Idk. If it was Trump vs. Bernie in the general I'm almost certain the country takes Bernie.

That would be the saddest election of all-time.

[Dalyn]

If Trump wins the primary, I might just vote for him to see what happens. It would be worth it.

[Runnin]

That would be the saddest election of all-time.

It would be sad for the professional politician crew but I think it would be great for voters and also great for political discourse. I'd love to see a debate between Bernie and Donald, two guys who don't speak from a pre-packaged playbook of talking points.

[Runnin]

Idk. If it was Trump vs. Bernie in the general I'm almost certain the country takes Bernie.
The GREAT thing about this election so far is how disillusioned and disinterested the conservative electorate is with the usual lineup of suspects. The country clearly is not excited with them like it's not excited about Hillary.

Now we're gonna find out if all that money really can buy an election. So far it doesn't look like it.

[weso1]

Donald Trump has a better chance at becoming President than Bernie Sanders. People need to get off the pipe, either way.

I agree with that. Biden is the guy if this Hillary Clinton email scandal undoes her campaign.

[weso1]

If Trump wins the primary, I might just vote for him to see what happens. It would be worth it.

You know, I was just thinking about this earlier today. I was thinking that there are certain people on this board who will obviously vote for the democrat no matter what, but then there are democrats on this board that are more moderate who I think will choose Trump for a myriad of reasons. And your name came up as an example of someone in my mind who would vote for Trump. I think the more moderate vote would choose Trump over the socialist.

[weso1]

It would be sad for the professional politician crew but I think it would be great for voters and also great for political discourse. I'd love to see a debate between Bernie and Donald, two guys who don't speak from a pre-packaged playbook of talking points.

Carson and Fiorina are making waves too. Carson has been really impressive in some of his recent interviews, imo.

[Dalyn]

You know, I was just thinking about this earlier today. I was thinking that there are certain people on this board who will obviously vote for the democrat no matter what, but then there are democrats on this board that are more moderate who I think will choose Trump for a myriad of reasons. And your name came up as an example of someone in my mind who would vote for Trump. I think the more moderate vote would choose Trump over the socialist.

Well, I'm not a democrat, but your point stands.

[The Chosen One]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/donald-trump-presidential-poll-debate/index.html

Can't stop the Don!

[Dalyn]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/donald-trump-presidential-poll-debate/index.html

Can't stop the Don!

Hilarious.

[The Chosen One]

Possibly my new avatar

http://oi62.tinypic.com/talhds.jpg

[Dalyn]

I like it! If he wins the primary, I'll have to use it to show my support. Trump! FTW! (for the win AND f*ck the world)

[The Chosen One]

I like it! If he wins the primary, I'll have to use it to show my support. Trump! FTW! (for the win AND f*ck the world)

It is confirmed and done.

[jpx7]

The GREAT thing about this election so far is how disillusioned and disinterested the conservative electorate is with the usual lineup of suspects. The country clearly is not excited with them like it's not excited about Hillary.

Now we're gonna find out if all that money really can buy an election. So far it doesn't look like it.

It frequently doesn't look like it will, but then it usually does.

[50PoundHead]

Kind of sums up a lot of things quite well in my opinion: http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/donald_trump_is_the_last_whimper_of_the_angry_whit e_man_whats_really_behind_his_stubborn_lead/

[Dalyn]

Kind of sums up a lot of things quite well in my opinion: http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/donald_trump_is_the_last_whimper_of_the_angry_whit e_man_whats_really_behind_his_stubborn_lead/

Seems to get a lot of Asian support, too.

[Hawk]

Donald Trump is good in the boardroom and the bedroom.

Former Penthouse Pet Sandra Taylor claims that Trump was an amazing lover when the two enjoyed a brief fling in 1991, gushing about the presidential's hopefuls sexual prowess.

She said of Trump, who had his secretary track her down after spotting her on the cover of New York magazine; 'Omigosh, he was great'.

[goldfly]

http://s23.postimg.org/kzc383b17/Screen_Shot_2015_08_19_at_3_42_18_PM.png

[Runnin]

Kind of sums up a lot of things quite well in my opinion: http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/donald_trump_is_the_last_whimper_of_the_angry_whit e_man_whats_really_behind_his_stubborn_lead/
Excellent article. Thanks.

Enjoyed the blog on James Garner too. (https://kimmessick.wordpress.com/in-praise-of-james-garner/)

[CrimsonCowboy]

<temporarily ending personal ban on political talk>

Trump is in my hometown tonight. I'm not at the rally since I'm not supporting Trump, but I'm checking out the rally. I will say his hat is doing a good job in making sure his toupee doesn't crawl away.

<personal ban on political talk reinstated.>

[Runnin]

<temporarily ending personal ban on hair talk>

Is it a toupe? He's shown that the hair is in fact attached. It fooled me. However that doesn't excuse the ridiculous brush over wave for a man his age. That he would look closer to presidential with a more dignified hair style is a no brainer.

<personal ban on hair talk reinstated.>

[CrimsonCowboy]

Well played, Runnin:happy0157:

[weso1]

http://s23.postimg.org/kzc383b17/Screen_Shot_2015_08_19_at_3_42_18_PM.png

Shoo wee. That's a lot of money Mexico will be sending our way.

[Oklahomahawk]

Shoo wee. That's a lot of money Mexico will be sending our way.

Maybe we can trade them back all those weapons from that stupid "fast and furious" fiasco instead of cash.

[goldfly]

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11223305_884926901580887_8794459053201897434_n.jpg ?oh=ed0bde8ce89998d1be62ae0b2ad7839d&oe=56414769

[Hawk]

Cheryl Burns, 60, was on a road trip from California when she heard that Trump would be in Alabama. She turned her car around and got in line, warning people of what happened to states when liberals took them over.

“There is no more California,” Burns said. “It’s now international, lawless territory. Everything is up for grabs. Illegal aliens are murdering people there. People are being raped. Trump isn’t lying about anything — the rest of the country just hasn’t found out yet.”

---

Cheryl for the ****ing win.

[chop2chip]

Cheryl Burns, 60, was on a road trip from California when she heard that Trump would be in Alabama. She turned her car around and got in line, warning people of what happened to states when liberals took them over.

“There is no more California,” Burns said. “It’s now international, lawless territory. Everything is up for grabs. Illegal aliens are murdering people there. People are being raped. Trump isn’t lying about anything — the rest of the country just hasn’t found out yet.”

---

Cheryl for the ****ing win.
I must live in a different California I guess. I don't know.

[Runnin]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11892277_919514281474960_2484183933710097340_n.jpg ?oh=22fa252f43cbe334f9342e5052affc1e&oe=5674D9EC

[BedellBrave]

I'm not sure it's as simple as the above memes would have us believe:

NYT: Why The Donald Won't Fold (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/politics/why-donald-trump-wont-fold-polls-and-people-speak.html?_r=0)

[Hawk]

More NYT goodness from Maureen Dowd:

Certainly, Trump could explode at any moment in a fiery orange ball. But meanwhile, he has exploded the hoary conventions, money-grubbing advisers and fund-raising excesses of the presidential campaign, turning everything upside down, inside out, into sauerkraut.

It is a fable conjured up in several classic movies: A magnetic, libidinous visitor shows up and insinuates himself into the lives of a bourgeois family. The free spirit leaves, but only after transforming the hidebound family, so that none of them can see themselves the same way again.

That is the profound metamorphosis Trump has wrought on the race. The Don Rickles of reality shows is weirdly bringing some reality to the presidential patty-cake.

The Donald’s strange pompadour and Hillary’s strange server have eclipsed all the usual primary permutations.

Because Trump is so loud, omnipresent, multiplatform and cutting, he’s shaping the perception of the other candidates. Once he blurts out the obvious — Jeb is low energy, Hillary is shifty, Mitt choked — some voters nod their heads and start to see his targets in that unflattering light as well.

Trump has trapped his Republican rivals into agreeing with his red-meat opinions on immigration or attacking him, neither of which are good options. Trump bluntness only works for Trump, and getting into a scrap with him is like being tossed into a bag of badgers.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-donald-trump-struts-in-his-own-pageant.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

[Runnin]

I don't think anyone is implying that Trump's appeal is simple.

DT Just Stopped Being Funny - The Trolling Stoned (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/donald-trump-just-stopped-being-funny-20150821)

[Runnin]

Cheryl Burns, 60, was on a road trip from California when she heard that Trump would be in Alabama. She turned her car around and got in line, warning people of what happened to states when liberals took them over.

“There is no more California,” Burns said. “It’s now international, lawless territory. Everything is up for grabs. Illegal aliens are murdering people there. People are being raped. Trump isn’t lying about anything — the rest of the country just hasn’t found out yet.”
---

Cheryl for the ****ing win.

Typical Trump supporter? old White racist?

[Hawk]

Typical Trump supporter? old White racist?

Actually, per Bedell's linked article, atypical.

A review of public polling, extensive interviews with a host of his supporters in two states and a new private survey that tracks voting records all point to the conclusion that Mr. Trump has built a broad, demographically and ideologically diverse coalition, constructed around personality, not substance, that bridges demographic and political divides. In doing so, he has effectively insulated himself from the consequences of startling statements that might instantly doom rival candidates.

In poll after poll of Republicans, Mr. Trump leads among women, despite having used terms like “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” to denigrate some of them. He leads among evangelical Christians, despite saying he had never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness. He leads among moderates and college-educated voters, despite a populist and anti-immigrant message thought to resonate most with conservatives and less-affluent voters. He leads among the most frequent, likely voters, even though his appeal is greatest among those with little history of voting.

[Runnin]

Actually, per Bedell's linked article, atypical.

So what was the point in repeating what some racist said?

[weso1]

Trump would win the presidency easily if he had a reasonable filter. He's actually a lot like Obama, Clinton and Reagan in that he's got the "it" factor. Nobody in the current democratic field has that. The only reason he's not the obvious favorite to win is as Dowd put it in Hawk's post, Certainly, Trump could explode at any moment in a fiery orange ball.

As far as what he would be as President. I think he'd be fine. I think he'd basically just be a moderate republican. Most people want the border shut down and I guess that's his most controversial issue. I personally see no way he would actually deport non felon illegals. I just don't see that happening. It would be an awesome 4 years if he won.

Trump is plenty capable to be President.

Something that people have largely ignored about the Trump campaign is that he's got a great slogan. Make America great again. I mean it's basically hope and change but worded differently.

[Hawk]

So what was the point in repeating what some racist said?

Hilarity?

There's nothing racist in that comment as it textually presented. If you want to infer that this elderly women is racist because she wants stricter immigration reform, then that seems like a typical foundering left-wing character assault -- IMO. All show, no substance.

[Runnin]

Hilarity?

There's nothing racist in that comment as it textually presented. If you want to infer that this elderly women is racist because she wants stricter immigration reform, then that seems like a typical foundering left-wing character assault -- IMO. All show, no substance.
"textually presented"? Your powers of perception are as bad as the fake old woman's. "international, lawless territory", "no more California", "Illegal aliens are murdering...People being raped". It's a joke obviously written by somebody making fun of rednecks and Trump supporters. But you fell for it.

Btw, the murder rate in California is about average and has been dropping for the last 20 years. According to the FBI report the 3 states with the highest murder rates: Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, in that order.

[Hawk]

"textually presented"? Your powers of perception are as bad as the fake old woman's. "international, lawless territory", "no more California", "Illegal aliens are murdering...People being raped". It's a joke obviously written by somebody making fun of rednecks and Trump supporters. But you fell for it.

I guess I'm still back here at square one trying to find the racist angle.


Btw, the murder rate in California is about average and has been dropping for the last 20 years. According to the FBI report the 3 states with the highest murder rates: Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, in that order.

And 49% of the arrested murderers are Latino.

[Runnin]

I guess I'm still back here at square one trying to find the racist angle.


Keep looking. It's in the underlying propositions of the sentence.

[Hawk]

Keep looking. It's in the underlying propositions of the sentence.

How so?

[57Brave]

While Trump assured me that he thinks Bush is “a nice person,” he has told friends in private that his animosity is personal. According to one friend, Trump blames Bush and Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim for Univision’s decision in June to cancel a $13.5 million contract with Trump to televise his Miss USA pageant. Five days later, Slim scrapped a deal with Trump to develop shows in Mexico. Trump responded by filing a $500 million lawsuit against Univision. “Trump believes it all goes back to Jeb,” the friend says. “He thinks Jeb and his wife, Columba, are close with Carlos Slim and Univision got pressure from Slim operatives.” In a move that further confirmed Trump’s suspicions, Univision has hired Miguel Estrada, a Washington lawyer with deep Bush ties.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/trump-expansion-plan.html

[zitothebrave]

Hilarity?

There's nothing racist in that comment as it textually presented. If you want to infer that this elderly women is racist because she wants stricter immigration reform, then that seems like a typical foundering left-wing character assault -- IMO. All show, no substance.

Actually it's a legit problem in the R party.

When Scott Brown was running for the NH seat, he ran caling Jean Shaheen weak on immigration. That should matter exactly 0% to New Hampshirites as Mexicans aren't crossing the border to come to NH, NH has a hispanic population of NH is about 3%, vs the White population of about 91%. But it obviously works with racists, even though immigration shouldn't be farther from a concern for citizens of the Granite State.

[Hawk]

Actually it's a legit problem in the R party.

When Scott Brown was running for the NH seat, he ran caling Jean Shaheen weak on immigration. That should matter exactly 0% to New Hampshirites as Mexicans aren't crossing the border to come to NH, NH has a hispanic population of NH is about 3%, vs the White population of about 91%. But it obviously works with racists, even though immigration shouldn't be farther from a concern for citizens of the Granite State.

Unbridled immigration could negatively impact the economy on a massive scale. Some would argue that it already has. How would that not be a concern for every citizen, regardless of geographical proximity to the border, is beyond me.

[zitothebrave]

Unbridled immigration could negatively affect the economy on a massive scale. How would that not be a concern for every citizen, regardless of geographical proximity to the border, is beyond me.

If an illegal immigrant who can't speak English is stealing your job, you are making minimum wage and not contributing much to society as it is. I would be iwlling to guess illegal immigration is far down the list of problems and probably helps keep certain goos and services cheaper which according to supply side economics is a good thing.

[Hawk]

If an illegal immigrant who can't speak English is stealing your job, you are making minimum wage and not contributing much to society as it is. I would be iwlling to guess illegal immigration is far down the list of problems and probably helps keep certain goos and services cheaper which according to supply side economics is a good thing.

It's not really about 'stealing jobs' at all though.

[zitothebrave]

It's not really about 'stealing jobs' at all though.

It's very anti-republican ethos IMO to be against illegal immigration and saying it hurts the economy. I guess then you vehemently disagree with sturg and aces on eliminating the minimum wage and support a higher minimum wage?

[Hawk]

It's very anti-republican ethos IMO to be against illegal immigration and saying it hurts the economy. I guess then you vehemently disagree with sturg and aces on eliminating the minimum wage and support a higher minimum wage?

What? All I've said here is that unchecked immigration is problematic.

[zitothebrave]

What? All I've said here is that unchecked immigration is problematic.

Well, it's hardly gonna be unchecked. Eventually you run out of unskilled positions and when those dry up, they return to Mexico. IIRC we had a massive decline in immigration when our economy nosedived.

Personally I think we should make it easy for people who want to work here to come here and work and pay taxes, and rent, and buy goods, and so on so forth. I fail to see how it can really be bad, aside from hurting US citizens who don't have the skills to compete against people who don't speak the language.

[Hawk]

Well, it's hardly gonna be unchecked. Eventually you run out of unskilled positions and when those dry up, they return to Mexico. IIRC we had a massive decline in immigration when our economy nosedived.

That's an unlikely scenario. It seems like you are operating from a somewhat dated perspective that has illegals coming to the United States strictly for employment purposes.


Personally I think we should make it easy for people who want to work here to come here and work and pay taxes, and rent, and buy goods, and so on so forth. I fail to see how it can really be bad, aside from hurting US citizens who don't have the skills to compete against people who don't speak the language.

I agree to an extent, but like other countries, we need to a) have caps b) conduct thorough background checks and c) insure those individuals who are legally granted citizenship are already educated, employable, and willing to contribute to society just like every other citizen is expected to. Again, this is what every other country on earth does -- why can't we?

[Runnin]

How (is that sentence racist)?
“There is no more California,” Burns said. “It’s now international, lawless territory. Everything is up for grabs. Illegal aliens are murdering people there. People are being raped. Trump isn’t lying about anything — the rest of the country just hasn’t found out yet.”

In case you are being serious - it proposes that true California was domestic, aka. White, and lawful (both completely untrue, btw) and that now it's overrun by illegals, aka. Mexicans, and is unlawful, implying that what made California California was it's whiteness and lawfulness. I'll ignore the other claims.

[acesfull86]

Trump and Sanders should just get it over with and run a joint ticket on the "populist angst" party.

[Hawk]

“There is no more California,” Burns said. “It’s now international, lawless territory. Everything is up for grabs. Illegal aliens are murdering people there. People are being raped. Trump isn’t lying about anything — the rest of the country just hasn’t found out yet.”

In case you are being serious - it proposes that true California was domestic, aka. White, and lawful (both completely untrue, btw) and that now it's overrun by illegals, aka. Mexicans, and is unlawful, implying that what made California California was it's whiteness and lawfulness. I'll ignore that other claims.

Thanks for gracing me with your seriously preposterous (not to mention bizarre) interpretation of that text and, as I suspected, fragile racist accusations.

[50PoundHead]

More NYT goodness from Maureen Dowd:

Certainly, Trump could explode at any moment in a fiery orange ball. But meanwhile, he has exploded the hoary conventions, money-grubbing advisers and fund-raising excesses of the presidential campaign, turning everything upside down, inside out, into sauerkraut.

It is a fable conjured up in several classic movies: A magnetic, libidinous visitor shows up and insinuates himself into the lives of a bourgeois family. The free spirit leaves, but only after transforming the hidebound family, so that none of them can see themselves the same way again.

That is the profound metamorphosis Trump has wrought on the race. The Don Rickles of reality shows is weirdly bringing some reality to the presidential patty-cake.

The Donald’s strange pompadour and Hillary’s strange server have eclipsed all the usual primary permutations.

Because Trump is so loud, omnipresent, multiplatform and cutting, he’s shaping the perception of the other candidates. Once he blurts out the obvious — Jeb is low energy, Hillary is shifty, Mitt choked — some voters nod their heads and start to see his targets in that unflattering light as well.

Trump has trapped his Republican rivals into agreeing with his red-meat opinions on immigration or attacking him, neither of which are good options. Trump bluntness only works for Trump, and getting into a scrap with him is like being tossed into a bag of badgers.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-donald-trump-struts-in-his-own-pageant.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

I found Axelrod's quotes in the Dowd piece to be insightful. Americans seem to want change until they get it. Having been involved with campaigns (lo, though many years ago) the "change" theme always seems to resonate with someone.

[The Chosen One]

I found Axelrod's quotes in the Dowd piece to be insightful. Americans seem to want change until they get it. Having been involved with campaigns (lo, though many years ago) the "change" theme always seems to resonate with someone.

Was just going to make a thread on this.

Americans don't want someone who's been in Washington too long or at all, but at the same time Americans want someone who has "experience". Can't have that experience unless you've been in the game for a while.

Americans want someone who hasn't been exposed and will stand up to the corruption and backroom deals on Capitol Hill, but Americans want someone who can compromise and make a deal with the other side. Can't do that unless you've made good friendships and connections on the Hill.

Palin had zero foreign policy credentials, yet people felt she was more qualified than Obama,a Senator at the federal level, whom was on various Subcomittees with foreign relations.

Hillary has one of the most prestigious resumes on paper that anyone running for the office has ever had, yet people think she's not qualified to be President. (I'm not endorsing Hillary btw, just saying it like it is).

Cruz has been in the Senate for 3 years now, Rand and Rubio for 5. At what point are those guys officially Washington establishment guys? I was watching O Brother and have to reference one of my favorite Pappy O'Daniel scenes.

"People like that reform (change). Hey maybe we should get us some reform too?"
"I'll reform you you soft-headed son bitch. How you gonna run reform when we're the damn incumbent?!"


Obama is the shining example for this conundrum. He came into office with the change tone, yet when the other side wouldn't move an inch to compromise with him, Americans all of the sudden decided they want him to compromise even if it means agreeing to outlandish things. Just compromise just to compromise, not even getting the best deal. Obama wins re-election, and the opposing party's top leader says it's not a mandate for anything.

Trump and Carson are two who don't have that Washington experience, yet polls suggest people like them because they are not Washington guys, but don't like them because they don't have that Washington experience.

[goldfly]

which dumbass do you think Burns is in this photo?

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/08/22/National-Politics/Images/484797712-5475.jpg&w=1484

for someone who likes to make fat jokes of others, he might should hit the gym

[goldfly]

Americans seem to want change until they get it. Having been involved with campaigns (lo, though many years ago) the "change" theme always seems to resonate with someone.

not sure why Donald even comes close to the mold of change

he might could be worse actually


"I would call up the head of Ford; Who I know.. if I was President [of the US]. I'd say..'congratulations.. I understand you're building a nice $2.5 billion dollar car factory in Mexico, and that you're going to take your cars and sell them the the United States - ZERO TAX - just fly them across the border'.

And you say to yourself. 'how does that help us?' right? 'where is that good?' It's not.

So I'd say, 'congratulations, that's the good news. Let me give you the bad news. Every car and every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border..we're gonna charge you a thirty percent tax.' " ~Donald Trump

as my Mom taught me many moons ago, actions speak louder than words:

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11223317_1080873935256618_4109175400754874861_n.jp g?oh=da4b163f95618c5558aa17fceb5b23c0&oe=56845C35




but hey, i'm sure he pulled himself up from his boot straps


https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11925997_10206354624198679_2864425764109421509_n.j pg?oh=9a8042d732b68161cc1667aab8cb9252&oe=5636A7DD

[Runnin]

Thanks for gracing me with your seriously preposterous (not to mention bizarre) interpretation of that text and, as I suspected, fragile racist accusations.
You asked and I tried to answer as plainly as possible.

I don't have the power to grace anything.

[Hawk]

I don't have the power to grace anything.

Could have fooled me. :JSIDK:

[Runnin]

Could have fooled me. :JSIDK:

See there. You do understand subtlety.

[50PoundHead]

not sure why Donald even comes close to the mold of change

he might could be worse actually



as my Mom taught me many moons ago, actions speak louder than words:

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11223317_1080873935256618_4109175400754874861_n.jp g?oh=da4b163f95618c5558aa17fceb5b23c0&oe=56845C35




but hey, i'm sure he pulled himself up from his boot straps


https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11925997_10206354624198679_2864425764109421509_n.j pg?oh=9a8042d732b68161cc1667aab8cb9252&oe=5636A7DD

I've always believed that "change" is a malleable macro-concept and has almost exclusively become more about style than substance. I thought Axelrod's quote hit that dead center. Bush (at least the post-9/11 iteration) seemed to be all about action over deliberation. Obama, while obviously dedicated to certain actions, certainly provided an image of greater reflection and contemplation. Trump seemingly wants to get back to action-mode.

But I really have to laugh at his comments about Ford. Okay, we put a 30% tax on cars coming back into America from Mexico. Sounds good, but Ford would pass the cost of the tax on to the consumer. Ford's option would be to start building more cars in Detroit (or other places in the US), but those are union jobs and the higher cost of American labor will be again passed on to the consumer. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for union jobs, but when the American public is paying a couple of thousand more for a car as a result of what Trump is suggesting, they'll be railing against the change; the change they supposedly wanted.

The other thing I want to know about Trump (and I'm relatively certain this will come out) is the magnitude of the tax breaks and other enticements he was provided for his development projects. My guess is it's in the billions.

[sturg33]

I've always believed that "change" is a malleable macro-concept and has almost exclusively become more about style than substance. I thought Axelrod's quote hit that dead center. Bush (at least the post-9/11 iteration) seemed to be all about action over deliberation. Obama, while obviously dedicated to certain actions, certainly provided an image of greater reflection and contemplation. Trump seemingly wants to get back to action-mode.

But I really have to laugh at his comments about Ford. Okay, we put a 30% tax on cars coming back into America from Mexico. Sounds good, but Ford would pass the cost of the tax on to the consumer. Ford's option would be to start building more cars in Detroit (or other places in the US), but those are union jobs and the higher cost of American labor will be again passed on to the consumer. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for union jobs, but when the American public is paying a couple of thousand more for a car as a result of what Trump is suggesting, they'll be railing against the change; the change they supposedly wanted.

The other thing I want to know about Trump (and I'm relatively certain this will come out) is the magnitude of the tax breaks and other enticements he was provided for his development projects. My guess is it's in the billions.

Trump wanting to tariff everything that we import is a joke. Between cutting off trade, cutting off immigration, and taxing all imports, I'd say he's nearly as anti-growth as Hilary and Bernie

[AerchAngel]

Trump wanting to tariff everything that we import is a joke. Between cutting off trade, cutting off immigration, and taxing all imports, I'd say he's nearly as anti-growth as Hilary and Bernie

So you rather jobs go overseas than keep them here? What jobs can we provide our nation when you can get 1/10 or more of the dollar when you build/make it overseas. This is how Wally World took out all the middle class businesses in the states. When I went home, not many mom and pop stores, all Wally Worlds and Targets and when I pick up an item, made in China, made in Indonesia, made in Pakistan. I put them down, rather pay the extra dollar to find Made in the USA. One, I found out that products made overseas are not good quality and sometimes dangerous and then you have the buy the same thing again, meaning if you bought it from the USA and their strict regulation, it lasts longer.

This is why raising the minimum wage will not work here, almost all the mom and pop establishments will close and then the oligarchs like Wally World, Target, General Dollar and so forth will only be the stores you can shop at.

[50PoundHead]

PS--I bought a nice tie off the clearance rack a few years back and didn't notice until I got home it was a Donald Trump brand. Just checked the other day to see where it was made. Sure enough, it was manufactured by the evil Chinese.

Aerch, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree, but the bottom line is that if Trump shuts down free trade, prices go up. Given where the American middle class is, that's a non-starter.

[sturg33]

So you rather jobs go overseas than keep them here? What jobs can we provide our nation when you can get 1/10 or more of the dollar when you build/make it overseas. This is how Wally World took out all the middle class businesses in the states. When I went home, not many mom and pop stores, all Wally Worlds and Targets and when I pick up an item, made in China, made in Indonesia, made in Pakistan. I put them down, rather pay the extra dollar to find Made in the USA. One, I found out that products made overseas are not good quality and sometimes dangerous and then you have the buy the same thing again, meaning if you bought it from the USA and their strict regulation, it lasts longer.

This is why raising the minimum wage will not work here, almost all the mom and pop establishments will close and then the oligarchs like Wally World, Target, General Dollar and so forth will only be the stores you can shop at.

Cutting off trade with the rest of the world would be a total economic disaster

[zitothebrave]

Cutting off trade with the rest of the world would be a total economic disaster

Would it though? I mean I'm not talking about cutting off trade, but making a level playing field. If China devalues the yen to make exports cheap and steals our intellectual property charge a hefty tariff. We have to be proactive. A free market cannot exist in a world where people don't play by the rules. And if they dont' play by the rules, **** them.

[sturg33]

Would it though? I mean I'm not talking about cutting off trade, but making a level playing field. If China devalues the yen to make exports cheap and steals our intellectual property charge a hefty tariff. We have to be proactive. A free market cannot exist in a world where people don't play by the rules. And if they dont' play by the rules, **** them.

That would be all well and good if our economy wasn't so dependent on imports from others, especially from China.

You can't say you want the minimum wage raised then say you want to tax the hell out of imports.

And the US has done plenty of currency manipulating over the years, so we don't have much of a leg to stand on. And if we ever decided to cut our spending, maybe we wouldn't need to borrow so much from... CHINA to finance our recklessness.

Like it or not they kind of have a hold on us. And cutting off trade with them would be a disaster

[goldfly]

That would be all well and good if our economy wasn't so dependent on imports from others, especially from China.

You can't say you want the minimum wage raised then say you want to tax the hell out of imports.

And the US has done plenty of currency manipulating over the years, so we don't have much of a leg to stand on. And if we ever decided to cut our spending, maybe we wouldn't need to borrow so much from... CHINA to finance our recklessness.

Like it or not they kind of have a hold on us. And cutting off trade with them would be a disaster

i never hear you talk about actually changing the way we live

it's always "we are dependent on this or that, so we have to keep it this or that way"

[50PoundHead]

i never hear you talk about actually changing the way we live

it's always "we are dependent on this or that, so we have to keep it this or that way"

And that's what I was trying to hit at (albeit unsuccessfully) in my mention of the allure of "change" in the political discussion. Everyone seems to want it, but no one seems want to do the cost/benefit on any proposal because any cost seems to be too high for what might amount to a substantial benefit. Nothing comes without sacrifice on someone's part; the question is "Who sacrifices?" Inertia has really taken over.

[sturg33]

i never hear you talk about actually changing the way we live

it's always "we are dependent on this or that, so we have to keep it this or that way"

I don't want to change foreign trade... I'd actually like to make it easier

[bravesnumberone]

Don kicked a Univision reporter out of his news conference. Lulz.

[Runnin]

Now he says he won't run as Independent. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-telling-gop-brass-he-will-forego-a-third-party-run-sources_55de06eae4b04ae4970577d3?kvcommref=mostpop ular) because a radio interviewer explained to him why. "When you said it the way you said it, that’s very interesting."

Duh. Never even considered that before. What a charlatan. He may be more ready for politics than people think.

[weso1]

Now he says he won't run as Independent. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-telling-gop-brass-he-will-forego-a-third-party-run-sources_55de06eae4b04ae4970577d3?kvcommref=mostpop ular) because a radio interviewer explained to him why. "When you said it the way you said it, that’s very interesting."

Duh. Never even considered that before. What a charlatan. He may be more ready for politics than people think.


He has no choice. The brilliant Virginia lawyer Ken Cucinelli is going to come up with a rule that anyone on the republican ticket in his state must pledge to stand behind the eventual nominee or they won't be on the republican ballot in Virginia.

Trump played the third party card well, imo. Used it as leverage.

[weso1]

I like some things about Trump's policies, but others not so much. Sturg mentioned this subject earlier, but he's basically Al Gore when it comes to free/fair trade. I think he'll be great on immigration and veterans. Trump is actually pretty moderate on the issues outside of immigration, although his actions on immigration wii be more moderate than his words.

[Runnin]

I like some things about Trump's policies, but others not so much. Sturg mentioned this subject earlier, but he's basically Al Gore when it comes to free/fair trade. I think he'll be great on immigration and veterans. Trump is actually pretty moderate on the issues outside of immigration, although his actions on immigration wii be more moderate than his words.
He has proven so far that he may not only be the most popular Republican candidate, but also the most talented. If he does get the R nomination, he will have to start presenting a more palpable version of himself if he wants to have any chance, won't he???

[50PoundHead]

He has no choice. The brilliant Virginia lawyer Ken Cucinelli is going to come up with a rule that anyone on the republican ticket in his state must pledge to stand behind the eventual nominee or they won't be on the republican ballot in Virginia.

Trump played the third party card well, imo. Used it as leverage.

South Carolina has the same rule. Don't know what's really so brilliant about it.

I don't think it curbs Trump's option regarding running as a third party candidate. He can always use "they stacked the deck against me" if things go south for him.

[weso1]

South Carolina has the same rule. Don't know what's really so brilliant about it.

I don't think it curbs Trump's option regarding running as a third party candidate. He can always use "they stacked the deck against me" if things go south for him.

I didn't say it was brilliant.

[weso1]

He has proven so far that he may not only be the most popular Republican candidate, but also the most talented. If he does get the R nomination, he will have to start presenting a more palpable version of himself if he wants to have any chance, won't he???

I personally think he will struggle with women and hispanics in the general. I think he can get the pub base on board by having someone like Carson or Cruz be his VP. I think those are two of the few candidates he hasn't gone after.

I will also say that I think he's the best presidential candidate from an articulation and authoritative stand point of any of the candidates on either side, and by a wide margin. While I would imagine Trump would have difficulty in the general election, I think he may be able to overcome it largely because I never would imagine him actually winning the GOP nomination. So I just can't put it past him. Plus the dems probably aren't going to put out a great candidate this year. There is no Obama or Bill on their side.

[50PoundHead]

I didn't say it was brilliant.

You described Cucinelli as brilliant, which would also be wrong.

[weso1]

You described Cucinelli as brilliant, which would also be wrong.

I said he's a brilliant lawyer. That's what I said. He's really really good at that job. That's my opinion.

[BedellBrave]

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11701022_10153508221949255_4485554063786493277_n.p ng?oh=6977c255e49157f4198bbf1c2ab380dc&oe=567D7D05


Let's get a Biden vs. Trump so we can have a who's the creepiest old-man contest.

[Runnin]

He's figured out what America really wants, a Mr. Outrageous.

[AerchAngel]

He's figured out what America really wants, a Mr. Outrageous.

Instead of the status quo?

Minnesota did it, California did it and then subsequently America did it with Reagan, which wasn't bad.

[Hawk]

http://i.imgur.com/LnFlPbq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Jon8DLt.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Znb0PFG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qzUKywY.gif
http://i.imgur.com/xXbcagW.gif

[Oklahomahawk]

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11701022_10153508221949255_4485554063786493277_n.p ng?oh=6977c255e49157f4198bbf1c2ab380dc&oe=567D7D05


Let's get a Biden vs. Trump so we can have a who's the creepiest old-man contest.

How many ballots do you think it would take to pronounce a winner in that contest?

[50PoundHead]

Instead of the status quo?

Minnesota did it, California did it and then subsequently America did it with Reagan, which wasn't bad.

It was pretty bad in Minnesota.

[BedellBrave]

You know I think our country is already receiving a dose of the wrath of God. How else do we explain this Trump-Sanders-Clinton load of crap that we've got - and that our fellow Americans are cheering? It's absolutely depressing. Well deserved, but depressing nonetheless.

[bravesnumberone]

You'd think a country of which a vast majority identifies as Christian would do better. :Bowman:

[bravesnumberone]

As for the Clinton thing, they're a powerful political family and a lot of Americans have their heads so far up their ass about her it's beyond repair. A major part of why Sanders and Trump are doing well is middle class angst. The causes they blame for a stagnant middle class are different, but the overall sentiment is the same.

[BedellBrave]

You'd think a country of which a vast majority identifies as Christian would do better. :Bowman:


Indeed.

[weso1]

You can't discount Trump. He clearly has hilariously bad weaknesses, but his strengths are at an elite level in regards to presenting himself as a future president.

[weso1]

And this is shaping up to be a protest election. People just don't want to vote for Jeb and Hillary right now.

[weso1]

I personally believe Biden is the best candidate the democrats could run right now and the greatest threat to the republicans. He is actually a very likeable guy and comes across as being competent. His biggest risk is that he's tied to current issues. If the economy collapses he is done Carter style. His second biggest risk is that he's Trump light. He's not as good as Trump from an articulation perspective, but he's got a Trump like filter, but not as bad.

[BedellBrave]

You can't discount Trump. He clearly has hilariously bad weaknesses, but his strengths are at an elite level in regards to presenting himself as a future president.


I don't discount him - just despise him.

[Runnin]

http://i.imgur.com/qzUKywY.gif


There's definitely a disturbing trend here.

http://www.myfox28columbus.com/template/ugc/wsyx/1600/WbIcBvde.jpg
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/17/17-joe-biden-mary-mcaleese.w529.h352.jpg
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/17/17-joe-biden-mcconnell-nieces.w529.h352.2x.jpg
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/02/17/ap797686111421_wide-b19a921c1f7bcfcd1c929841b67632e443b85ee4.jpg?s=140 0

[acesfull86]

I personally believe Biden is the best candidate the democrats could run right now and the greatest threat to the republicans. He is actually a very likeable guy and comes across as being competent. His biggest risk is that he's tied to current issues. If the economy collapses he is done Carter style. His second biggest risk is that he's Trump light. He's not as good as Trump from an articulation perspective, but he's got a Trump like filter, but not as bad.

He's also a moran

[acesfull86]

Nt

[jpx7]

There's definitely a disturbing trend here.

It's a trend, but I'm too busy being amused by it to be disturbed.

[Runnin]

It's a trend, but I'm too busy being amused by it to be disturbed.
I think he's got a hair sniffing fetish.

[BedellBrave]

"Uncle Joe: A Democrat Republicans Can Believe In

There’s no way Joe Biden becomes the Democratic nominee, and P.J. O’Rourke has mixed feelings about that.
Joe, the Democrats don’t like you. That’s fine by me. I’m a Republican. I don’t like you either. But, to quote the universally acknowledged definitive study of practical politics, which starred Marlon Brando, “It’s not personal… It’s strictly business.”

Personally, I think you’re a great guy. But I’m scared that you, a Democrat, could get elected—by a wide electoral and popular vote margin.

So, Joe, you and I understand each other. What I don’t understand is your fellow Democrats. I’ve seen what they’ve been saying about you in the mainstream media…

Let me pause for a moment in writing this well-informed and insightful analysis and clear something up for readers.

Political pundits like myself speak a different language, “Punditese.” When a conservative political pundit says “mainstream media,” that’s Punditese for “ass-kissing pink-o milksops.” (The clever type of conservative political pundits sometimes alter the phrase to “lamestream media.”)

Likewise, when a liberal political pundit says “right-wing-fringe talk radio,” that’s Punditese for “clear-eyed, sober assessment of the facts.”

As I was saying, Joe, it doesn’t look good. You’d think you were a Republican, the way our liberal pals in politics and the press are letting you have it..."



O'Rourke makes me chuckle. Link (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/05/uncle-joe-a-democrat-republicans-can-believe-in.html)

[BedellBrave]

"...Joe, you’re a stand-up guy. It’s not like you believe in the same things as Edmund Burke. But Richard the Lionheart didn’t believe in the same things as Saladin, and they were both stand-up guys. Your Democratic opponents are a couple of worthless little “sits.” One was the baby sitter for two juvenile presidents and the other is an Occupy Wall Street protestor unaccountably holding his sit-in in Vermont.

And, Joe, you’ve borne more personal sorrow than all the other presidential candidates, Democratic or Republican, combined. Borne it manfully.

Indeed, you’ve known more grief than all the other presidential candidates combined will give to the poor electorate over the next 15 months. Which is a lot. And we Americans would be a happier people if you were in the race, even we Republican-Americans.

But you’re not going to be.

The Big Donkeys want you kicked out of the Democrat candidate stable. They say you’re “too prone to gaffes.”

Here are a few of your “gaffes” from a Time magazine feature, “Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffs.”

You said about Obamacare on live TV, “This is a big f______ deal.”

You told the House Democratic Caucus, “If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30 percent chance we’re going to get it wrong.”

And when you were running against Obama for the 2008 nomination you described him as a “mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” And said of his candidacy, “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Punditese doesn’t have a word for “truth.” And it’s hard to explain, in English, the meaning of “gaffe.” The closest I can come is “saying the thing that is so.”

But that’s not the real problem, Joe. The real problem is you’re an old, white European male. The Democrats are determined to elect “the first (fill in the blank) American president.”

They’ve checked off No. 1 (African-American) and are determined to go down the list in order of historical victimhood.

Democrats are liberals and—to their profound embarrassment—liberalism is a philosophy rooted in the thinking of old, white European males.

Liberalism is based upon the philosophical inquiries of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine and—oh, the shame of it—slave-owning, woman-exploiting Thomas Jefferson. America’s first great liberal populist was Andrew Jackson, perpetrator of the Tail of Tears and annihilator of the Second Bank of the United States—and hence of centralized economic control.

Plus liberalism is painfully un-hip. Say Great Society to today’s with-it young Democratic voters and they assume you’re being fashionably ironic and hear air quotes around the “Great.” Say New Deal and they think you’re talking about the Texas Hold‘em they play on their smartphones.

Joe, you’re the Democrats’ best choice not just because you’re a decent, intelligent and experienced man who is, by all accounts, cooperative with your political allies, respectful of your political opponents and considerate to your staff.

You’re the Democrats’ best choice because you’re so far ahead of every other candidate, from either party, in the “Road Trip Poll.”

“With which presidential candidate would you rather go on a road trip?”

In the 17 presidential elections since 1948, the Road Trip Poll has had an accuracy rate of 88.2% (with a 5.9% plus or minus margin of error).

Salty, poker-playing Harry Truman beginning each day with a shot of Old Grand-Dad or Thomas E. “little man on the wedding cake” Dewey?

Jolly golfer Ike or po-face Adlai Stevenson?

Charming, charismatic JFK or—no adjectives needed—Nixon?

Bullroaring longhorn LBJ or Barry “Nuke ‘Em” Goldwater?

Tricky Dick (at least he was a drinking man) or the sanctimonious RFK fill-in Hubert “Hump” Humphrey?

George McGovern or Trick? Tough one. Dick, I guess. McG’s VP pick Thomas Eagleton was a veteran of McGovern road trips and had to have electro-shock therapy.

Carter or Ford? Okay, we were wrong.

Happy-go-lucky Ron or Persimmon-Puss Jimmy?

Reagan or whoever that stiff was?

George H. W. Bush or “I have to go take a Dukakis”? (A word-for-word off-the-record quote from Bush 41 obtained on deep background.)

George Bush or Bill Clinton? “Toga! Toga!” to quote Bill’s Washington colleague, Sen. John Blutarski.

The guy in the Viagra ads or the guy getting his food laced with saltpeter by Hillary?

Al Gore—nickname “Albert”—or the frat boy from Yale’s DKE Animal House?

W. or Kerry, who’d be ordering Chateauneuf-du-pape (’90) at the Billy Goat Tavern in Chicago, wondering where the Ritz Carlton was located in Tucumcari, New Mexico, and worrying about getting stone chips on his BMW 7 Series?

Obama or McCain? Alright we were wrong again.

Obama or a Mormon wearing special underpants that, according to LDS church literature, provide “protection against temptation and evil”?

However, all that said, far be it from me to tell the Democrats how to avoid losing the presidency—and the Senate and the House—in 2016.

It’s the Democratic Party’s political funeral. And I’ll gladly decorate the grave, soon as I’ve had a six-pack of beer."

[57Brave]

I know Hawk scolds me for quoting (or reading for that matter ) Daily Kos. But, this was too rich to pass up !!!

" If Donald Trump does, due to some unforeseen circumstances possibly involving space aliens irradiating the planet with an unstoppable stupid ray, somehow become president, I believe this would make him the first of America's presidents to own and operate his own beauty pageant. "

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/11/1420434/-Donald-Trump-buys-back-Miss-Universe-rights-after-some-loudmouthed-yahoo-ruins-the-brand

[bravesnumberone]

I mean that's essentially what most political elections are these days. Beauty pageants.

[goldfly]

your republican leading presidential hopeful:

http://1wdojq181if3tdg01yomaof86.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/eeorshthujqx6mro3cgf.jpg

[57Brave]

I mean that's essentially what most political elections are these days. Beauty pageants.

That depends on an electorate. Doesn't it ?

Would you consider Bernie Sanders a "beauty pageant" contestant ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/911-bernie-sanders-iraq-hillary-clinton_b_8121026.html
If so - you might be the problem

I didn't consider Obama a Beauty Pagaent contestant.
Were you of those that elected Bush because you thought you might like to have a beer with him. Or, got a little chill when he landed on the aircraft carrier?
//////////////////

Did you watch the last (R) debate? That, was a beauty pageant.
10 contestants paraded in front of you with a runner up phase.

[bravesnumberone]

I think you missed it again. Not all that surprising. No Bernie is a rarity in politics. But the whole election itself is a beauty pageant. That doesn't change if you have an occasional fat girl in it. Or unfiltered candidate if you will.

[bravesnumberone]

And Obama was as smooth talking as it got in 2008. I don't vote based on who I would drink with.

[The Chosen One]

Each day passes I'm convinced Trump is trolling the GOP. Every big named establishment guy is doing all they can to discredit Trump but not Carson (maybe they see him as a running mate)

The more fringe outlandish things Trump says, the more of the base he riles up and gets excited, the more the other GOP candidates have to move right to try and get that share of the vote.

The best part? If I recall, the Republican Party has made it so only Registered Republicans can vote, lSo independents can't bail them out by giving support to Jeb or Rubio, if Trump really really holds the base up until Iowa and New Hampshire, he may sweep the GOP primaries in the South (Carson is black, Rubio is hispanic, and Jeb is married to a hispanic and is pro-immigration reform).

You have the bottom feeders acting as attack dogs on Trump (Christie, Jindal, Walker, Perry) to try and position themselves for one of the non-Trump top dogs to maybe pick them as a Veep.

[cajunrevenge]

Trump isn't the candidate we need, but he is the candidate we deserve. I am really at the point where I will vote for a joke candidate like Trump or Kanye simply out of spite for how bad our political system is. What I really want to see is millions of people writing in "none of the above" out of protest for how bad our choices are.

There are no words for how much I want Kanye to be president. Maybe they might have the balls to take on police unions and the criminalization of the average American citizen.

[Oklahomahawk]

You guys' thoughts on this perspective (http://danaloeschradio.com/news/wait-were-supposed-to-accept-muslim-refugees-now)? It also goes along with the posts lately about helping Syrian refugees.

[cajunrevenge]

I personally believe Biden is the best candidate the democrats could run right now and the greatest threat to the republicans. He is actually a very likeable guy and comes across as being competent. His biggest risk is that he's tied to current issues. If the economy collapses he is done Carter style. His second biggest risk is that he's Trump light. He's not as good as Trump from an articulation perspective, but he's got a Trump like filter, but not as bad.

Yeah but when conservatives don't like him they don't ha e the "they just hate him because he is black" or the "they just don't like her because she is a woman" meme that was going to be used for Hillary. Not liking Biden because he is an old rich white guy doesn't really resonate with the base.

[Oklahomahawk]

Yeah but when conservatives don't like him they don't ha e the "they just hate him because he is black" or the "they just don't like her because she is a woman" meme that was going to be used for Hillary. Not liking Biden because he is an old rich white guy doesn't really resonate with the base.

Umm excuse me but Biden is a SERIOUSLY CREEPY old rich white guy who doesn't resonate with the base.

[sturg33]

Each day passes I'm convinced Trump is trolling the GOP. Every big named establishment guy is doing all they can to discredit Trump but not Carson (maybe they see him as a running mate)

The more fringe outlandish things Trump says, the more of the base he riles up and gets excited, the more the other GOP candidates have to move right to try and get that share of the vote.

The best part? If I recall, the Republican Party has made it so only Registered Republicans can vote, lSo independents can't bail them out by giving support to Jeb or Rubio, if Trump really really holds the base up until Iowa and New Hampshire, he may sweep the GOP primaries in the South (Carson is black, Rubio is hispanic, and Jeb is married to a hispanic and is pro-immigration reform).

You have the bottom feeders acting as attack dogs on Trump (Christie, Jindal, Walker, Perry) to try and position themselves for one of the non-Trump top dogs to maybe pick them as a Veep.

Trump has no prayer of being the nominee

[goldfly]

Trump has no prayer of being the nominee

i use to think this

i then look at the other losers they have

and i actually start thinking that idea is crazy

he resinates with the base of dumbs and racists that is the base of the republican party

the rest just want someone different, it doesn't matter if his words are bull**** etc


i think he has a good shot being the nomination and then losing

seriously

[sturg33]

i use to think this

i then look at the other losers they have

and i actually start thinking that idea is crazy

he resinates with the base of dumbs and racists that is the base of the republican party

the rest just want someone different, it doesn't matter if his words are bull**** etc


i think he has a good shot being the nomination and then losing

seriously

I'll take the bet. And not sure why you think all the other candidates are losers. Just your typical nonsense these days

[goldfly]

I'll take the bet. And not sure why you think all the other candidates are losers. Just your typical nonsense these days

cool story bro

[sturg33]

cool story bro

typical.

I gave you a chance to explain why all the other candidates are "loser" and I get you typical nonsense these days

[goldfly]

I'll take the bet. And not sure why you think all the other candidates are losers. Just your typical nonsense these days


typical.

I gave you a chance to explain why all the other candidates are "loser" and I get you typical nonsense these days


lol

"i gave you a chance..."

that's good stuff

by the way i said the others were "losers", not "loser"

[Runnin]

Trump has no prayer of being the nominee
Why not? The last 2 Rep nominees have been Romney and McCain, both quite weak candidates with little universal appeal.

[sturg33]

lol

"i gave you a chance..."

that's good stuff

by the way i said the others were "losers", not "loser"

Nice! You totally burned me!!!

What makes the other candidates losers, specifically?

[sturg33]

Why not? The last 2 Rep nominees have been Romney and McCain, both quite weak candidates with little universal appeal.


Trump is not them.

I'd put his odds of winning at <5%

[Hawk]

Why not? The last 2 Rep nominees have been Romney and McCain, both quite weak candidates with little universal appeal.

If 'little universal appeal' gets one 60 and 61 million votes (respectively) then sign me up for that label.

I think you probably meant to say, 'hip and photogenic appeal'.