LOL, got it, FTS. We'll all stop using Trump's "head start" against him. Glad you set us all straight.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
What is disingenuous about what? Those candidates had a platform and a plan and some experience you could look back to. Trumps platform is essentially to hire someone with experience to come up with a plan. That's the issue, not whether he is self made or not.
Newsflash, most Presidential candidates come from wealth or power to some extent.
Doesn't change the fact that they had legitimate experience. Also doesn't mean I liked either one.
Nice comparison, again. Really on the money
Doesn't change the fact that they had legitimate experience. Also doesn't mean I liked either one.
Nice comparison, again. Really on the money
I'm sure there is no confirmation bias in that statement. lol
Care to share your research that concluded with that opinion?
Some people think Trump is expanding the GOP. I submit that he is merely reshuffling the deck, gaining some, while losing others.
As much as I don't care for Trump, some are making him out to be George Wallace, and he's not that. Certainly there are unsavory elements in his constituency, but in a 2 party system, that's true of virtually everyone candidate. (which isn't to excuse him for not immediately condemning/disavowing the KKK thing yesterday.)
People like him because he's not a politician and he gives people hell. Period. They don't care what his position on a particular issue is, or that his positions are inconsistent, or that he's really a liberal or really a conservative or really an anarchist or really a nothing. They don't care about his past or controversial things he's said or may say. So ordinary lines of attack will not work. People like him because he's not a politician and he gives people hell.
At least, that's true for the 40+% of the people that like him. I still think there's a hard ceiling in there that's too low for him to win a general election. Like wkycatfan says, he is the one guy that can alter the electoral map. For anyone else, it's pretty much set and comes down to a handful of purple states - maybe Trump changes things. But I think it nets to zero or maybe even negative: he may pick up some Reagan Democrats, but for every one of those he picks up, he'll lose someone that might otherwise vote for the R......
People like him because he's not a politician and he gives people hell. Period. They don't care what his position on a particular issue is, or that his positions are inconsistent, or that he's really a liberal or really a conservative or really an anarchist or really a nothing. They don't care about his past or controversial things he's said or may say. So ordinary lines of attack will not work. People like him because he's not a politician and he gives people hell.
At least, that's true for the 40+% of the people that like him. I still think there's a hard ceiling in there that's too low for him to win a general election. Like wkycatfan says, he is the one guy that can alter the electoral map. For anyone else, it's pretty much set and comes down to a handful of purple states - maybe Trump changes things. But I think it nets to zero or maybe even negative: he may pick up some Reagan Democrats, but for every one of those he picks up, he'll lose someone that might otherwise vote for the R......
I think that most would give Trump (or is it Drumpf?) credit for doing well. The question is has Trump done as well as he has tried to lead us to believe? What other billionaire talks about how wealthy he is? Warren Buffett or Bill Gates could buy Trump many times over yet I've never heard either boast about their wealth...and neither of them were born with silver spoons.
Trump claims to be worth $10 Billion...says it all the time. What if he is really only worth $1 Billion...or $500 million...that's still really, really great but wouldn't you wonder why he wants us to know how rich he really is? Why the hard sell?
There are many people highly skeptical of Trump because of his boasting, his lose regard for facts, inability to put any meat on his positions..."it's going to be great" isn't a plan, it's a wish...not to mention the wide range positions he has held.
All that said, it doesn't matter what political party Trump claims to follow. He could have decided to run as an "Aliens from the Moon" party and I think his support would be at the same level. People are tired of Republicans and Democrats and the constant bickering. They are tired of it from the left and tired of it from the right. You have your hard core 25-30% on both sides...Trump is the "None of the above" vote.
I don't think Trump really has any ideology that lines up with either party but his attraction I think to most is unique to him, not a party. I don't see it having any coattails. If he is a Republican then he is more in the Rockefeller Republican mode...the big business Republicans that existed prior to 1980. Most all of them were driven out of office mostly at the hands of the GOP itself as the Newt Gingrich "all things conservative" crowd that started with the election of Reagan.
I'd rather be of the party who stands in opposition to Hillary than the one who has to explain and be responsible for TrumpAll of which elects Hillary.....
All is proceeding as She has foreseen it.I'm starting to think this may work in reverse of what I originally thought. I always thought Trump would be the 3rd party candidate. Now, I think Trump may spawn a 3rd party candidate.
All of which elects Hillary.....
Just need the right 3rd Party candidate so that the Dems win their share of states, but not a 270 electoral vote majority. Without that the House of Representatives gets to decide. President Paul Ryan.I'm starting to think this may work in reverse of what I originally thought. I always thought Trump would be the 3rd party candidate. Now, I think Trump may spawn a 3rd party candidate.
All of which elects Hillary.....
99% sure it doesn't work that way. They have to pick between the candidates who received electoral votes, I believe.
Just a reminder of the type of people Democrats want to continue to bring over.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Allahu-Akbar-shuts-metro-station-Moscow.html
That blurry thing? Well, that's a 4-year-old's head that she was carrying in Moscow while shouting "Allahu Akbar."
Being PC with this type of stuff is pure idiocy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Allahu-Akbar-shuts-metro-station-Moscow.html
That blurry thing? Well, that's a 4-year-old's head that she was carrying in Moscow while shouting "Allahu Akbar."
Being PC with this type of stuff is pure idiocy.
including any combination of Perry or Cruz with Rubio as a 3rd party conservative alternative gets Texas & Florida
Yeah, because she is surely representative of the majority of Muslims.Just a reminder of the type of people Democrats want to continue to bring over.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Allahu-Akbar-shuts-metro-station-Moscow.html
That blurry thing? Well, that's a 4-year-old's head that she was carrying in Moscow while shouting "Allahu Akbar."
Being PC with this type of stuff is pure idiocy.
Kind of like me using a hooded David Duke as being representative of all Republicans.
Mostly fair points. Maybe all are, but Id have to examine it closer. I know on the stadium finance piece, Oliver made some leaps of logic and passed them off as fact; even though the vast majority of his piece was otherwise great.
Its completely fair to do takedown pieces on candidates. So......wheres Hillary's? John Oliver could do an entire seasons worth of material on just her alone. But I wont be holding my breath.
Right. Most modern presidential candidates come from money. It sucks, but its just how it is. To point out one candidate above others is contradictory. Even worse are those that are beholden to others for funding. Theyre basically puppets on a string.
The Democrats dream would be a conservative party to challenge the GOP from the right.
She does represent Islamic ideology especially the type that is coming into Europe. What you base your stance on are "middle class" and "wealthy" Muslims, which is not the people being brought in.
Sexual assault is out of control in Europe because of the importing of these animals. The left's refusal to say anything critical of Islam is embarrassing at this point.
Not sure I would say most. In my lifetime only Kennedy, Bush 1 and 2 could have been said to come from money. Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Obama...none of that group came from better than middle class.
Of course the 3rd party would have to win a state or two minimum, otherwise it's impossible for one of the two major party candidates to not reach 270.
So you're saying that the GOP will nominate their sitting SotH to be the 3rd candidate? That makes no sense at all.
They'd prob pick Romney. Already has national recognition and broad (while, admittedly, lukewarm) support across the party.
Nate Silver, on what a Trump candidacy means for the Rs:
"If Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination, he’ll have undermined a lot of assumptions we once held about the GOP. He’ll have become the nominee despite neither being reliably conservative nor being very electable, supposedly the two things Republicans care most about. He’ll have done it with very little support from “party elites” (although with some recent exceptions like Chris Christie). He’ll have attacked the Republican Party’s three previous candidates — Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush — without many consequences. If a Trump nomination happens, it will imply that the Republican Party has been weakened and is perhaps even on the brink of failure, unable to coordinate on a plan to stop Trump despite the existential threat he poses to it.
Major partisan realignments do happen in America — on average about once every 40 years. The last one, which involved the unwinding of the New Deal coalition between Northern and Southern Democrats, is variously dated as having occurred in 1968, 1972 and 1980. There are also a lot of false alarms, elections described as realignments that turn out not to be. This time, we really might be in the midst of one. It’s almost impossible to reconcile this year’s Republican nomination contest with anyone’s notion of “politics as usual.”
Will this be a real realignment, or another false start? Ono one hand, the increased clout/reliance on social conservatives does seem to throw the basic conservative constituency into a bit of a mess. Plenty of people say they could support a fiscal conservative if not for the other elements. But others make a good argument that the traditional conservative coalition post-Reagan (strong defense + free market + social cons) is fully complementary -- they just need to add to it.....
"If Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination, he’ll have undermined a lot of assumptions we once held about the GOP. He’ll have become the nominee despite neither being reliably conservative nor being very electable, supposedly the two things Republicans care most about. He’ll have done it with very little support from “party elites” (although with some recent exceptions like Chris Christie). He’ll have attacked the Republican Party’s three previous candidates — Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush — without many consequences. If a Trump nomination happens, it will imply that the Republican Party has been weakened and is perhaps even on the brink of failure, unable to coordinate on a plan to stop Trump despite the existential threat he poses to it.
Major partisan realignments do happen in America — on average about once every 40 years. The last one, which involved the unwinding of the New Deal coalition between Northern and Southern Democrats, is variously dated as having occurred in 1968, 1972 and 1980. There are also a lot of false alarms, elections described as realignments that turn out not to be. This time, we really might be in the midst of one. It’s almost impossible to reconcile this year’s Republican nomination contest with anyone’s notion of “politics as usual.”
Will this be a real realignment, or another false start? Ono one hand, the increased clout/reliance on social conservatives does seem to throw the basic conservative constituency into a bit of a mess. Plenty of people say they could support a fiscal conservative if not for the other elements. But others make a good argument that the traditional conservative coalition post-Reagan (strong defense + free market + social cons) is fully complementary -- they just need to add to it.....
well where the touch else would an alternative come from, The Donald is centrist/left on every issue outside of immigration. And even on that one he is just an actor reading lines he thinks will make him popular and loved with the audience.
damned if you do, damned if you dont. let Donald carry the GOP banner and he probably not only loses but causes catastrophic losses down ballot. put in a 3rd party conservative option and likely locks the WH for Hillary, but might drive enough turnout to save others. still might be possible to thread the needle & in a 3 way race deny Hillary 270, & throw it to Paul Ryan's House.
No, it ain't likely, it is as remote as Ben Carson's nomination chances. FBI doing real work, but Obama's Justice Dept wants nothing to happen. How do I know, because these 2 words have not and will not ever be mentioned with HIllary's Email Story: Grand Jury. Only if a grand jury is impaneled can subpoenas be issued, people be put under oath, indictments be issued.
And the current AG ain't doing that, because Hillary winning means she gets to keep her job after 1/20/17. And the current WH occupant aint gonna get a special prosecutor, because THAT would mean all his unconstitutional executive action "accomplishments" are wiped clean come 1st quarter 2017. Bye bye legacy, nuh uh can't do that.
A photographer at a Trump rally, chest bumped a secret service agent and screamed "eff you" in his face and then got rocked with a choke slam. Of course, the typical outlets like ABC and NBC have conveniently not shown what provoked it...just the choke slam and the photographer acting like a victim.
My bad, you were right about the choice having to come from one of the top 3 vote receivers in the election, so Ryan couldn't nominate himself for example.
Not heard the story but you assume that ABC, NBC have "what provoked it" on video. Because there are cameras in the building doesn't mean that they were focused on this event.
I saw the tweets and video that ABC showed on social media.
Why do you play dumb when it comes to liberal media bias? We have journalists from The Atlantic and CNN writing stuff the Clinton campaign tells them to and you're still denying it exists.
How can anyone deny this shit?
Last edited:
Marco is proving exactly what I thought he was from the beginning. Is getting beat and starts resorting to saying anything to try and get votes and people wonder why folks are tired of politicians and Trump is getting the votes. Just another typical politician.
What did I deny? Said I had not seen the story.
So is Fox part of this liberal bias or no?
Just google how minorities have done under Obama and you will find that they have done a lot worse. That is the norm with dems in office and yet, you guys keep voting for this. Idiots is just how I see it or insanity. When you just keep doing the same thing hoping for a different outcome.
Last edited:
So doing what Trump is doing makes him a typical politician, but Trump gets credit for not being a politician?
Similar threads
