Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 472186 times)

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #400 on: November 11, 2015, 12:52:01 PM »
My daughter is a hair dresser and she loves the comb over. In fact, she claims that a couple of her older men clients are now using it.

And hey, so women say they hate it, but if Trump were not married and was available and interested in them, they would love it.  Money makes up for appearances........
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump's hair
« Reply #401 on: November 11, 2015, 02:48:17 PM »
So that wasn't one of my better posts...
It works for him.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #402 on: November 11, 2015, 03:21:59 PM »
You are just jealous. You would have taken Trump's rejects like most guys....... Ivana or Marla....... :lol: :lol: :lol:
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump - First Real "Mistake"?
« Reply #403 on: November 12, 2015, 07:14:08 AM »
During the Tuesday debate, Trump was asked about the $15 minimum wage. He went into a rambling answer and said that "wages were too high" referring to the minimum wage.

This statement is being taken out of context by pundits and by foes. The statement may be the first chink in the armor for Trump. Not  from his supporters, but from others.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump - First Real "Mistake"?
« Reply #404 on: November 12, 2015, 07:56:58 AM »
During the Tuesday debate, Trump was asked about the $15 minimum wage. He went into a rambling answer and said that "wages were too high" referring to the minimum wage.

This statement is being taken out of context by pundits and by foes. The statement may be the first chink in the armor for Trump. Not  from his supporters, but from others.

Yes.  That is the fear of nominating those without this type of experience, that they can't anticipate how their bungled words will be used against them in advertising and attacks.  Even for the experienced, Peggy Noonan recently said something very cutting about Romney acting like a political neophyte with his 47% comment and generally being a gaffe machine.  No one has fully landed a punch on Trump yet but it's all on tape.

Regarding minimum wage, Trump misses the point entirely anyway.  The issue is not how high or how low the wage should be; the issue in a free country is who gets to determine that.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #405 on: November 12, 2015, 08:39:22 AM »
Certainly the issue is who gets to determine "minimum wage", but revoking minimum wage is not going to sell in any election. It is just like having everyone pay  taxes. Those that do not pay will never support even 1% tax rates.



PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Trump: How stupid are the people of Iowa, of this country to believe this crap?
« Reply #406 on: November 13, 2015, 08:43:49 AM »
This is the kind of story that, if true, can bring down the former front runner, IMO.  Maybe he brings them both down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/13/donald-trump-begs-iowans-not-to-believe-ben-carson-dont-be-fools-okay/

FORT DODGE, Iowa — As Donald Trump took the stage in a community college theater on Thursday night, something was off.

The usually punctual executive was nearly 40 minutes late. His voice was hoarse, his hair mussed, his tone defensive. He promised to take questions from the audience but instead launched into a 95-minute-long rant that at times sounded like the monologue of a man grappling with why he is running for president — and if it's really worth it or not. Even for a candidate full of surprises, the speech was surprising.

He scoffed at those who have accused him of not understanding foreign policy, saying he knows more about Islamic State terrorists "than the generals do." He took credit for predicting the threat of Osama bin Laden and being right on the "anchor baby situation," a position he says "these great geniuses from Harvard Law School" now back. He uttered the word "crap" at least three times, and promised to "bomb the s---" out of oil fields benefiting terrorists. He signed a book for a guy in the audience and then tossed it back at him with a flip: "Here you go, baby. I love you."

Trump called Republican rival Carly Fiorina "Carly whatever-the-hell-her-name-is," accused Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton of playing the "woman's card" and said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is "weak like a baby." He then devoted more than 10 minutes angrily attacking his chief rival, Ben Carson, saying the retired doctor has a "pathological disease" with no cure, similar to being a child molester.

"If I did the stuff he said he did, I wouldn't be here right now. It would have been over. It would have been over. It would have been totally over," Trump said. "And that's who's in second place. And I don't get it."

For months, Trump has defied the traditional rules of politics, saying and doing things that would end the presidential ambitions of most candidates — and often to the chagrin of Republican leaders who can't believe that a billionaire reality television star has built such a dedicated following and dominated the polls for so many months. As some waited for an implosion of Trump's improbable campaign, the Republican front-runner began to show much more composure and control on the campaign trail. During the latest debate, he largely refrained from attacking those on stage with him, instead focusing on the policy questions asked.

[As challengers approach, a different Donald Trump emerges]

But Trump appeared to unravel on stage Thursday evening before a crowd of roughly 1,500 in Fort Dodge, a small industrial town 100 miles northwest of Des Moines. Many in the crowd were community college students who have never voted in a presidential election, along with teachers, local politicians and a number of farmers from the area. Rather than sticking to his usual, tidy 60 minutes, Trump kept going and going. Campaign staffers with microphones had planned to solicit questions from the audience, but instead stood waiting in the aisles, then sat for a while, then stood again at attention. Those standing on risers behind Trump — providing a backdrop of Iowan faces — eventually gave up and sat down in a falling cascade.

At first, the audience was quick to laugh at Trump's sharp insults and applaud his calls to better care for veterans, replace the Affordable Care Act and construct a wall along the Mexican border. But as the speech dragged on, the applause came less often and grew softer. As Trump attacked Carson using deeply personal language, the audience grew quiet, a few shaking their heads. A man sitting in the back of the auditorium loudly gasped.

The tirade came amid one of Trump's busiest weeks yet on the campaign trail. Trump hosted "Saturday Night Live" last weekend and then spent Sunday doing interviews. Monday night he had a rally in Illinois. Tuesday night was the fourth GOP debate in Milwaukee. Wednesday morning, after about 90 minutes of sleep, Trump attended a breakfast in New Hampshire. Thursday he arrived in Iowa for a tour of a factory, television interviews and the rally at the community college.

Trump's tear started hours before the rally. On Twitter, he slammed Carson, "dopey Karl Rove" and the Wall Street Journal editorial board. In a CNN interview, Trump accused Rubio of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country simply because he's Hispanic. A few of Trump's fans learned about the rally speech on Twitter and accused reporters of fabricating the quotes and tweeting them out in unison. Video later posted online showed that Trump indeed had said these things.

Trump opened the rally with a defense of his often-criticized proposal for dramatic immigration reform. He explained how other countries punish illegal border crossers: North Korea requires 12 years of hard labor, he said, while Afghanistan shoots people and Canada assess a fine of $5,000.

"If you cross the United States border illegally you get a job, you get a drivers license … you get food stamps, you get a place to live, you get health care, housing, child benefits and in many cases education," Trump said. "You wonder why we're a debtor nation. You wonder why our country is going to hell."

Throughout the evening, Trump kept coming back to this point: The country is going to hell and something must be done. And it was a message that the audience seemed to savor.

"We're in this thing together, folks. We've got to get out of it," Trump said at one point. And later: "We're just not going to take it any more."

Trump described traditional politicians as "stupid" and told the crowd that he is "competent." That's why he got so angry when journalists forced him to share his strategy for fighting the Islamic State, even though he wanted to keep such plans secret so as not to tip-off the enemy. Journalists, he said, are "scum" and "garbage."

"I know more about ISIS than the generals do," Trump said. "Believe me."

Trump said he would go after the oil fields in Iraq and Syria that he says nets the terrorist group "millions of dollars a week."

Play Video0:54Trump on the Islamic State: 'I would just bomb those suckers'

At a rally in Iowa, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would take an aggressive stance against the Islamic State, vowing to "bomb the s---" out of their oil-rich territories. (Reuters)
"I would bomb the s--- out of them," he said to raucous applause. "I would just bomb those suckers. And that's right: I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries. I would blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left."

The applause was nowhere near as strong as Trump launched into a lengthy critique of Carson, who is well-liked in Iowa and has at times beat Trump in polls here.The Iowa caucuses are often dominated by evangelicals, many of whom have been captivated by Carson, who talks endlessly about his faith.

[Trump's attacks on Carson turn personal]

Carson wrote in his autobiography that as a young man he had a "pathological temper" that caused him to violently attack others — going after his mother with a hammer and trying to stab a friend, only to have the blade stopped and broken by the friend's belt buckle. In recent days, those accounts have come under scrutiny, and Carson has had to clarify or correct some of the details.

Trump said Carson has a "pathological disease" with no cure, comparing it to the incurable mental conditions of child molesters.

"A child molester, there's no cure for that," Trump said. "If you're a child molester, there's no cure. They can't stop you. Pathological? There's no cure."

With his voice growing louder and louder, Trump questioned what sort of person would attack his mother. He questioned how a belt buckle could stop a blade, stepping away from the podium to demonstration how such an attack might happen and how his own belt buckle wouldn't stay in place long enough to stop a knife.

"Anybody have a knife?" Trump asked the audience, which was screened by Secret Service agents who began protecting him this week. "You want to try it on me?"

Trump was flabbergast: "How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?"

And Trump said he doesn't believe that after just a few hours of reflection, Carson found God and overcame his violent temper.

"He goes into the bathroom for a couple of hours and he comes out and now he's religious," Trump said. "And the people of Iowa believe him. Give me a break. Give me a break. It doesn't happen that way. It doesn't happen that way. … Don't be fools, okay?"

Trump told the audience that while he might not be "a perfect Christian" like Carson, he has leadership abilities that Carson does not have.

"I know how to do it," Trump said of the presidency. "I really know how to do it."

After 95 minutes, Trump drew to a sudden but long-awaited end. Gripping the podium, he promised to unify the country and win. He also wondered aloud if he should just move to Iowa and buy a farm.

"I've really enjoyed being with you," Trump said. "It's sad in many ways because we're talking about so many negative topics, but in certain ways it's beautiful. It's bea

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #407 on: November 13, 2015, 08:59:53 AM »
I am listening to this speech right now. Will have more later so that I can understand the full context of it. Just don't trust the media on anything, like I don't trust politicians either.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #408 on: November 13, 2015, 09:12:38 AM »
I am listening to this speech right now. Will have more later so that I can understand the full context of it. Just don't trust the media on anything, like I don't trust politicians either.

Good.  That was just one Washington journalist's account.  But it is what people see - in the biased news area, not the opinion section.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #409 on: November 13, 2015, 09:34:14 AM »
We await your assessment Pat.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
I dump Trump
« Reply #410 on: November 13, 2015, 10:19:47 AM »
or "bump" him to the bottom of my list.

Trump has now lost me.  I no longer favor him.  I heard part of his take on Carson and it was petty, grade schoolish and just plain poor political strategy.  And he is wrong.  I DO believe Carson's stories.

Rush had a good montage today of all the damn msm outlets using the word "tirade" to describe Trump's speech. There is no more obvious example of how the MSM coordinates their attacks on all things and persons Republican.   The journalisters are all out in force.

But back to Trump his speeches should be about the integrity of Hillary not Carson.

Cruz is rising.

He is first for me.  He has clearly gotten to be excellent in the debates.

Yet I am not sure he could beat the Democrat mafiosos.

Rubio would be second for me ahead of Carson.  I guess we are stuck with the illegal problem with him.   What else can I say?


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #411 on: November 13, 2015, 10:54:22 AM »
Okay, I listened to the entire 95 minutes so that I could understand the article. The bottom line is that the writer, Jenna Johnson has taken things entirely out of context.

1. This was Trump's typical stump speech with a few additions. Nothing more. He hit on all his favorite topics and using the same basic lines.

2. He was not haggard, tied, hair mussed, any of that. And he did not go off on a 95 minute rant that was any different from his normal speeches. The delivery style was his normal style.

3. The Carly whats her name line was nothing. It was as if he did just forget her last name, nothing more. In fact, there might have been only two sentences about Carly the entire time. A nothing burger.

4. The remark about knowing more than the generals on ISIS was a throwaway line, nothing more. It was made in the context of how he would go after ISIS, in the oil fields, etc. To focus upon that single statement, done in an off handed way, is  a deliberate attempt to distract from what he was suggesting about how to handle ISIS.

5. The book toss, another nothing burger. The guy was next to the stage, and the stage is elevated. So he just did a quick toss like anyone would do. It was not done as Johnson tried to suggest, in a derogatory manner.

6. Hillary is playing the woman card and the race card. Is it wrong to point that out?

7. The  statements about Rubio were not as derogatory as Johnson tried to make it. So he said Rubio was weak as a baby. He also cited that Rubio would be a terrible poker player, giving away his hand by his tell, and would be a terrible negotiator. He hit Rubio hard on immigration.  Again, nothing different than his has  cited before about Rubio.

For everyone, the key point will be the attack on Carson and how it is being represented. One must listen  to the entire piece to understand it and the context used.

- The  child molester comment was cited solely as a reference as to how pathologically sick people don't generally change. Trump was not calling Carson a child molester.

- Trump accurately cites that in the Carson book, he called himself pathological in his anger. So Trump simply called him on it and was using his own words against him.

- Trump was also challenging the stabbing story in the book that Carson admitted to, and then also attempting to hit his mother in the head with a hammer. He was linking the events to the pathological anger and how it was not reasonable to believe that 2 hours in a bathroom and Carson was suddenly cured by God.

- Trump also went into the stabbing, calling into question the story itself. First the guy was named Bob, but all of a sudden it is a false name used. He was also a friend, and then that was changed to a cousin. Finally, he talked about the knife breaking and not sliding off the belt buckle and hitting the kid. Then he showed how his own belt buckle would move if hit by a knife.

This all went to credibility issues. If the stories are not true or have been ramped up for better effect, then that is something to be considered.

8. As to calling the people of Iowas stupid, it was in context with the stabbing incident. "What's wrong with the people of Iowa? The US?" if they are accepting this story?" It was not as bad as Johnson has tried to make it.

In the end, this was a hit piece against Trump and nothing more. Everything was taken out of context so at to put Trump in a worse light.

Should Trump have attacked Carson like he did? That is a personal decision for each person to make. But it should be made only after reviewing the speech at that point and then rendering  an opinion.

BTW, Carson responded today to Katie Couric. He said that he would identify the person if:

“I do have this deal to make. If the media will promise that they will not bother this person or any of the other people, and if they promise that they will be honest, truthful and apply everything to everyone equally from now on, I will reveal the truth. Is that fair?”

So Carson will reveal the person and details and the media cannot further vet the story. So his version lives if the deal is taken. Carson knew full and well that this deal would not be taken. So he through it out as a diversion and nothing else. He is learning the political ropes very fast.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #412 on: November 13, 2015, 11:04:28 AM »
Thank you Pat.

Though what we see of Trump in these things underwhelms me and IMHO diminishes him as a candidate, especially against Hillary, I too find myself doubting the belt buckle story.  Frankly it smells to me to be a bit of a whopper, perhaps by an Erkel looking to thug up his story a bit and add zip to his story of redemption.

What concerns me more are things like Trump's apparently specious grasp of the meaning of Putin's play in Syria.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #413 on: November 13, 2015, 11:16:35 AM »
I must say that image if it was Trump who did the knife and hammer thing. Everyone would  be screaming for him to quit the race.

Actually I am in agreement with Trump on Syria. We have no business getting involved if we don't know the good guys from the bad. Furthermore, if we remove Hassad, who takes over the country? Which bad group? AQ? ISIS? Hezbollah?

We are not going to get assistance from other countries for Syria. It would be us again, primarily alone. And we would have to put large numbers of forces on the ground. In turn, all the bad guys would turn back on us. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Just another Libya or Egypt coming up..............
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Tirade, kicking him while he's down
« Reply #414 on: November 13, 2015, 01:55:39 PM »
Discounting the sugar coating, PP has this about right.  He wasn't that much out of character.  Still it shows an abysmal lack of focus and self discipline.

PP supports Trump because he is strong on immigration and would lead or negotiate with great strength in other areas as well.

Trump is for Trump because he is Trump, not because of one issue or another.  It's about him.  (That is true for all of them but much more obvious with Trump)  Carson's junior high escapades and trouble with the press over his story have nothing to do with Trump, who just can't believe he is losing his lead or sharing his lead with this guy.  It's so wrong and so unfair to him.  It threatens him and his reaction isn't pretty.

But Carson doesn't threaten him.  Carson has his own challenges and is highly unlikely to ever become President.  If this story was going to take him down, it would do it without Trump's help.  If Trump is to lose this, it won't be because of Carson and a knife and a belt buckle!

Trump jumps in with 'pathological', says Carson called himself that, but Trump is happy to expand on it.  Great idea, have a real estate developer discuss medical terms with a neurosurgeon, what could possibly go wrong.  There are times I think I know more than my doctor or lawyer, but I don't let it sound like I do and usually find out that I don't.

Trump throws in the "child molester" term next, directly following Carson being pathological.  No, he didn't call Carson that but what kind of undisciplined political rookie wouldn't know that people, especially irresponsible journalists, would make that connection.  You don't throw Hitler/Nazi analogies to current affairs around easily (Carson did it once), and you don't compare your opponent to a child molester - unless you mean it.  I guess you can but it won't end well.

Trump's problem is that the gaffe fits his pattern and the perception.  Fiorina interrupting Rand Paul was none of Trump's business either but he couldn't stay out of it, and got booed.  

Opponents would call all Republican speeches a tirade.  This one gives them reason, even it is unjustified and was just a typical stump speech.  

I digress to profanity when I get rattled about political differences.  I did it just the other night.  But I'm not running for President, and I lowered my voice saying it to one person, not through a microphone to a packed auditorium.  It was a serious point, how to deal with ISIS and our strategy in the Middle East.  If your strategy is to bomb the shit out of them, you will have more opportunity to do that if elected than if you stumble and look undisciplined out on the trail.

Same goes for calling Iowans stupid.  He was calling them to not be stupid, but too late.  Who could see that might come out wrong in a Washington Post or Real Clear Politics headline.  Probably everyone.

Trump's candidacy has lost meaning.  Phase I:  He wanted to shake things up and promote himself on the biggest stage.  He did that.  Phase II:  His defining theme was that he is a winner and leads in all the polls - and it was true.  Trump doesn't know how to shift into Phase III which is to act like you are President, be the President.  Be the only person people can see as being the next President.  In fact, he has been rewarded all the up for acting the opposite.  In the early going Trump would rip anyone who ripped him, even in the most juvenile ways, and his numbers would go up.  Sometimes we learn the wrong lessons

PP says this was nothing.  I say he will never recover.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 02:05:56 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #415 on: November 13, 2015, 02:27:50 PM »
Yes.

Trump is a narcissist.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #416 on: November 13, 2015, 02:30:05 PM »
Forget the Trump personna. It matters no.  If you remember, I have constantly held that Rubio will be the nominee due to Rule 40 and the RNC ability to manipulate the convention rules.

That said, do you believe that Rubio, Cruz, Carson or Fiorina will make any difference in DC if any one of them win the election? I say no. There will be no difference because the pull of special interests are too great and they will find themselves going with those interests.

The last time I though good of any politician was Dubya. I thought he would be different that previous presidents and that he would cause positive change. Dumb ass me. He turned out to be terrible on economic policy and almost as bad with foreign policy.

Everyone is missing the anger in the middle and lower classes and how it is festering, waiting to explode. They are tired of being screwed by politicians on both sides. They see policies and programs being implemented that benefit either the well off, or else those who are of certain ethnic groups. Meanwhile, their lot in life is getting  worse, not better.

The middle class sees that their children and grandchildren will be worse off than their generation, not the promise which America has offered that the next generation would be better off.

This anger manifests itself by support for both Trump and Carson, true outsiders, and this amounts to 50% plus of the perceived Republican voters. How will the current crop of Republican professional politicians going to appease this group while trying to serve their masters?

Add in the frustration on the left represented by supporters of Sanders and the college students who are demanding free tuition, forgiveness of student loans, $15 an hour minimum wage and new government social programs, this country is set to explode and evolve in unknown ways.

The truth is that no one of any party running for president is going to prevent this powder keg from going off. All that can be done will be to limit the damages.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile



ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #420 on: November 16, 2015, 02:22:44 PM »
My concerns are:

1. Rules of Engagement - Hopefully kill them all and let God sort them out.

2. What type of support?  A-10's, fighters, Wild Weasels, Bombers?

And what areas? Countries?
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
What a fg narcissistic sh*t!!!
« Reply #422 on: November 22, 2015, 04:15:57 PM »
"Fornicate America-- I'm The Donald and my personal grievances matter more than the America I want to make great again."

 :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

=============================


By Laura Meckler
Nov. 22, 2015 5:00 p.m. ET
16 COMMENTS

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump suggested Sunday that he would be open to running for president as an independent if he concludes Republicans aren’t treating him “fairly.”

The real-estate tycoon made his comments on ABC when asked about a Wall Street Journal article published online Friday that reported an effort by Republican establishment figures to unite to knock Mr. Trump out of the race.

The group plans a “guerrilla campaign” backed by secret donors to “defeat and destroy” his candidacy, the Journal reported.

The notion of an independent Trump bid worries many Republicans, who fear he would siphon votes from the GOP nominee and help elect a Democrat.

Asked if he would reconsider his vow not to run as an independent, Mr. Trump didn’t give a direct answer. “Well, we’ll see what happens,” he said. “It will be very interesting. But I’m leading every poll by a lot. It’s not even a little bit anymore, it’s a lot.”

Nationally, Mr. Trump is favored by 27.5% of Republican voters, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average, with retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 19.8% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12.5%.

Asked again if he was open to an independent run, he repeated, “Well, I’m going to have to see what happens. I will see what happens. I have to be treated fairly. You know, when I did this, I said I have to be treated fairly. If I’m treated fairly, I’m fine. All I want…is a level playing field.”

Mr. Trump’s loyalty to the GOP was questioned after the first Republican presidential debate in August, when he was the only candidate unwilling to promise support for the party’s eventual nominee. He put those questions to rest in September when he signed a GOP loyalty pledge, vowing not to run as an independent.

Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said: “All of the candidates seeking the Republican nomination have pledged to run as Republicans and support the nominee.”

Democrats were outright gleeful at the prospect of an independent Trump run next fall.

“The GOP can be very mean. If the Donald’s feelings are hurt by them, he absolutely should run as an independent!” said Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen.

Mr. Trump also said he would bring back waterboarding, the controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning and that is considered torture by many. President Barack Obama barred waterboarding and other techniques at the start of his presidency.

To justify his view, Mr. Trump cited brutal acts by Islamic State. “They don’t use waterboarding over there; they use chopping off people’s heads,” he said on ABC. “I would bring it back. I think waterboarding is peanuts compared to what they’d do to us, what they’re doing to us, what they did to [journalist] James Foley when they chopped off his head. That’s a whole different level and I would absolutely bring back interrogation and strong interrogation.”

Opponents say the U.S. has an obligation to hold itself to a higher standard than its enemies do and that torture is ineffective and undermines American values.

Mr. Trump also repeated his claim, forcefully denied by authorities, that “thousands of people were cheering” in Jersey City, N.J., when the World Trade Center towers fell on Sept. 11, 2001. He made that claim at a Saturday rally.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos told him that police say that never happened and that this has long been just an Internet rumor, but Mr. Trump didn’t back down.

“It did happen. I saw it….It was on television,” he said. “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as…those buildings came down.”

Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #423 on: November 22, 2015, 04:23:10 PM »
I makes me happy he isn' apologeticv....nor should he be. Liberals should be put into internment camps and sent into exile.

Don't know how to make that much clearer.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #424 on: November 22, 2015, 04:27:01 PM »
Apparently Donald has threatened to run third party if he thinks the Reps are unfair to him.

He has, but the Republicans can't win without Donald. To do so, would guarantee a Clinton win. Who wants that?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #425 on: November 22, 2015, 05:32:44 PM »
CD,

Let's look at this in a practical manner.

I know you and others do not believe in a GOPe effort to dictate the outcome of the primaries so as to have their choice to be the nominee, but even The Atlantic and Forbes have documented the changes to Rule 40 and how it would affect the nominating process.

1. The truth is that we do not have a two party system. Instead we have one party with two branches. Each branch is influenced by Wall Street and Big Business to meet their demands. The only difference then is how fast the two branches get the country to the same point.

2. Whether Hillary wins or Rubio or even Cruz (who really has no hope), we will continue on the course we are on. No changes.

3. Only Trump offers any hope of change in the direction of the country, and even then, the changes would have to come on the basis of what Max Weber described in the 1920's, reverent power. What this means is that the direction is changed because he can combine force of personality and the executive position to begin to turn the ship of state. Now will this happen? Probably not, but at least it offers hope  whereas the other candidates offer no hope.

Now for Trump and his comments:

4. Trump is clearly running the table at this time. He continues and he will win the popular vote in each primary, though thanks to Rule 40, he would not have even 1 state of the 8 needed to qualify for having his name in nomination.  Every other candidate would be worse off.

5. If this happens and the convention starts with no one able to be on the ballot, then a brokered convention begins. Rule 40 changes occur that allow for Trump and other candidates to have names placed into nomination, at the discretion of the RNC. Then the convention turns to someone other than Trump, probably Rubio, even though Trump had the popular vote.

This is the scenario that Trump is worried about and why he holds the threat of a 3rd Party run against the GOPe and Dems.

Would Trump win? Probably not and in fact the election would go to Hillary. But her or Rubio are two sides of the same coin. They will both get us to the same place but at different speeds.

Now, what happens if Trump does not go 3rd Party and simply ceases one the nomination for Rubio occurs? Hillary will win BIG! And why? That is easy........

The GOPe will have once again acted to thwart the wishes of the people, whether through people like Boehner, McConnell and now Ryan, or by manipulating the convention for Rubio. As a result, Trump supporters will stay home or if the do go to vote, will write in Trumps name or else not vote for a Presidential choice. It will be worse than with Romney in 2012, with at least 6% saying screw it, and probably lots more.

All Trump wants is a "fair shake" and nothing more. He wants a real chance to win and if he loses, let it be through voter choice and not GOP manipulation.

BTW, look at Trump rallies. The venues are overflowing with people. People waiting outside but who can't get in....waiting hours in the sun or rain for a Trump appearance.  Yet, what do we see with Rubio, Jeb, Cruz or others? 

Trump is holding daily rallies in all the early states. Does turnout for the rallies matter? The Trump deniers say no, but after a point, one must reconsider what is going on. And he is building up a grassroots organization unlike any type seen before.

This is going to be an interesting ride over the next 6 months.


PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #427 on: November 22, 2015, 07:12:32 PM »
No difference between Hillary and Rubio or Cruz?!?  What the hell are you smoking Pat?!? :lol:  I know Trump is your guy, but the bottom line here is he is willing to put the good of America second to his own vanity.  THERE IS NO WAY HE WINS A THREE WAY RACE!!!

FWIW IMHO as the number of contenders goes down we will see most of the votes that were going to them go to someone other than Trump.  

The simple fact is that that Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and Bush (!) do better against Hillary than Trump and given the stakes in this election for the future of our country it is a rational thing to want to go with the candidate most likely to win.  This is an election for the job of most powerful person on the planet-- and, as the saying goes, "Politics ain't bean bag" and Trump needs to dig down and find some character and realize that the country is more important than the man in his mirror.

Certainly he gets some things right, but he has not defended his tax plan, his grasp of the Middle East is devoid of understanding that Putin is building an axis of Iran, Shiastan Iraq, Alawitestan Syria, Hezbollah Lebanon, and Russia.   Until quite recently he held many positions that were an anathema to us here.  There are good and honorable reasons to prefer someone else to him.

PS:  Watched the Walters interview.  Liked his children-- which speaks well of him.







« Last Edit: November 22, 2015, 07:50:58 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #428 on: November 22, 2015, 08:14:39 PM »
CD,

You seem to believe that there is a difference between the parties. Look at the last 15 years. There is no friggin difference.

I don't give a damn what party the professional politicians belong to.......they are the same. They are all bought and paid for by big business and Wall Street.

Look who are funding the PACs supporting each candidate on either side. Do you believe that those people are throwing millions upon millions to help the little guy? Or that they are only interested in their own interests?   Both parties have been bought off by the Crony Capitalists and this is not going to change.

Everyone thinks Cruz is so great.............just pay attention to him.

1. He was for TPP before he was against it.  Oh, he was misled on it? Yeah, right.

2. He was on the border with Glenn Beck giving teddy bears etc.,  Think he is going to be hard on illegals? 

3. His PACs are big money people with ties to financial firms.  Is he going to do anything against their interests?  I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you belief that.

As to the entire GOP, look at their record in the Obama years. They say one thing and then do another. And their excuse is that they can't win because Obama will veto things. So they don't even try.

Look at Reid in the Senate when he had a majority but not even to pass legislation. So he goes nuclear and gets things done. McConnell won't do the same. Why?  The media will attack him so they need to get along.   Right. Pure bullshit.

Look at financial reform. If you look at Dodd Frank closely, it did not do anything to fix the problem. In fact, it only made it worse. Now, no one can start up a bank and the little banks cannot afford the compliance costs, so they are being bought out by the big boys. To big to fail?  That remains.

Look at TPP. Everything coming out and it is all bad, but these idiots are going  to pass it.

DC and all the politicians on both sides have destroyed this country. Now they are leading us to an American Economic Union with both NAFTA and TPP.  (BTW, Mrs Cruz apparently had a hand in writing an American Economic Union Plan.)

Back in the early 1970's, I was reading the Quarterlies put out by the Council of Foreign Relations and other groups. I saw the trends then and remember writing a paper in a politics course about the future. The gist of the paper was:

Create a world government by:

1. Unite countries by treaties to work with one another.

2. Create geographic government by bringing together countries through the Treaties.  (This was the EEC.)

3. Create new treaties and governments by bringing together countries on a hemispheric level.

4. Once hemispheric levels were achieved, world government would soon be achieved.

Where are we right now? We are following that progression step by step. The only thing that I did not consider is the Islamic threat, but all else is following that pattern.

What is for the good of the country? To be part of a global system that subrogates the rights of a US citizen to what the UN and others believe? To promote "free trade" and "global warming" actions that only serve to harm the US and benefit other countries?

I look at the US of the 1950s, 1960s, and then onward, and I see nothing but a steady progressive march towards socialism and world government controlled by special interest. Even during the Reagan era, it was only slowed, but still kept moving forward. And this continues under both parties.

I hope that you and I are both alive 20 years from now. Then we can see who was right. (Actually, I don't want to be alive then because I fear the future too much, but I don't have the courage to ensure I would not be alive.)

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #429 on: November 22, 2015, 09:05:02 PM »
What I said was there is a big difference between Rubio & Cruz and Hillary.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #430 on: November 23, 2015, 08:12:37 AM »
"you [Crafty in this case] seem to believe that there is a difference between the parties. Look at the last 15 years. There is no friggin difference."

Not true, but if you believe that, then look back beyond 15 years, look beyond federal government at state differences, look forward, not just backward.

I posted a long list of outrageous things Dems believe in today.  Republicans mostly don't.  Their problem is more about not having will to stand up to Dems after being elected; it's not that they agree with them.  Not all R's are centrists and RINOs.  We need to win more elections and also win more primaries.

Politicians including professional politicians misbehave because people don't hold them accountable, so the real problem isn't in Washington, it is closer to home.  Meanwhile people in some of the most conservative communities vote for some of the strictest curtailments on individual liberties in the form of things like zoning ordinances.

But take a look at the tax rate differences between California,New York and Texas/Florida.  Take a look at the fracking boom in ND versus none in NY.

In Washington, obviously both sides have screwed up.  Going back a ways, JFK was a Republican (in some ways) and Nixon was a Democrat (in most ways).  No, we wouldn't have been better off under Humphrey, we were screwed either way.  Reagan made an amazing difference, yet went RINO on a couple of things.  Clinton tried liberal tax increases and national healthcare and failed, then brought economic credit to the Dems by passing free trade, welfare reform and massive capital gains tax rate cuts.  Bush grew the revenues with tax rate cuts but grew spending more.  That is either not Republican or not conservative depending on what meaning we attach to what terms.  The financial crash was largely caused by free money (allowed by both sides) combined with governmental on lenders to make bad loans, a Dem program that  covered with Republican fingerprints.  We didn't hold our own politicians accountable and they just kept getting drunker, and when we don't offer a noticeable difference, we lose.

Trump is great on some issues and not on others.  He also chose to be polarizing which makes him less likely to be President.  


"Everyone thinks Cruz is so great.............just pay attention to him.
1. He was for TPP before he was against it.  Oh, he was misled on it? Yeah, right.
2. He was on the border with Glenn Beck giving teddy bears etc.,  Think he is going to be hard on illegals?  
3. His PACs are big money people with ties to financial firms.  Is he going to do anything against their interests?  I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you belief that."

1. Already mentioned, there is a HUGE difference between supporting the tradition of authorizing every administration the power to negotiate free trade agreements and supporting the bad clauses of this agreement.

2. People here mostly see Glenn Beck as one of the good guys.

3. I don't want to shut down 'Wall Street'.  I want to open up the financial industry to everyone nationwide who wants to be a part of it.  Imagine a store front on small town main street offering to take your company public and handle FINRA compliance - on a 2 page document.  The profits on Wall Street are out of proportion because Washington makes it impossible for anyone but the largest firms to comply with the massive bureaucracy.

Ted Cruz isn't going to be hard on illegals because, like Trump, he isn't going to be President.

Our job here on all political threads as some of us see it is encapsulated on the title of a couple of threads, the way forward for the American creed.  We need to clarify what are the right policies and find some common agreement on that.  We need to defeat the opponents of it.  We need to hold the proponents on our side accountable.  And we need to persuade the persuadable.  Even the French know, wars aren't won by surrendering.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 08:24:32 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #431 on: November 23, 2015, 09:25:33 AM »
I do agree with you on one thing......Trump nor Cruz will be the nominee. It will be Rubio as I have outlined previously....
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #432 on: November 23, 2015, 10:19:43 AM »
I do agree with you on one thing......Trump nor Cruz will be the nominee. It will be Rubio as I have outlined previously....

I guarantee you it will be better than HW's 2nd term and the Dole, McCain, Romney Presidencies combined.

Trump and Cruz are running for the nomination only, not to win the general election.  JEB and Kasich are running for the general election only, not to win the nomination.  Rubio is the only one running to win both. (MHO) 

Give President Rubio a Republican House and a Senate majority and then we still have the 60 vote problem with the 60 vote problem in the Senate to repeal Obamacare and enact new legislation like tax reform.  Budget reconciliation votes only need a simple majority.  We will have to define the size and scope of government there - if our own side can come to agreement.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #433 on: November 23, 2015, 01:39:44 PM »
Here it comes.........time for the GOPe and Media to take down Trump. 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/11/tv-networks-hold-conference-call-to-discuss-trump-treatment-216156

Waaaah....the media does not like how Trump treats them, but they say little about how Hillary treats them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/22/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKBN0TB0UJ20151122#o6QFmoJhp57m3ijU.97

Bush and Rubio donors contributing to Kasich PAC that is going after Trump.

This is exactly what the GOPe did in 2014 to Chris McDaniels from Mississippi, who beat Thad Cochran in the primary. The GOPe went so far as to literally pay Dem voters to cross over and vote for Cochran in the run off primary.

This is what is going to destroy what is left of the GOP party. They go after Trump like this, put Rubio in through a brokered convention and the party is finished.  Oh wait.....I forgot.......the GOPe said that they would welcome back Trump supporters and others, but only on their terms. 

Damned Professional Politicians............they should all be hung.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #434 on: November 23, 2015, 01:44:36 PM »
IIRC McDaniels in MS made some pretty unpleasant cracker statements, I can understand why the party would not want its' name stained by him.

Pat, we understand that Trump gives you a thrill running down your leg  :evil: but please do consider that good people of good intent can have good reasons for doubting him , , , 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #435 on: November 23, 2015, 02:19:56 PM »
I accept that there are people who have reasonable doubts, that is not the problem.

This is about the two parties and their professional insiders who care about their own power and the money that they make at the hands of Crony Capitalists. They make changes to the political process that benefits solely who they want to be the nominee and care not about the real people.

What is amazing to me is this:  If Jeb or Rubio had 35% of the people supporting either of them, the claims would be that the race is over. With Trump, the same people are trying to oust the Front Leader to foster people with 12% support. Go figure........

The Founding Fathers feared a Professional Political and what would happen if one occurred. And now we have it.   I believe in the writings of the Anti-Federalists. They called everything that is going on today.

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #436 on: November 23, 2015, 02:24:42 PM »
Trump does NOT have 35% except maybe in some online polls which are pure GIGO.

Rubio has 50% of the American people against Hillary with an 8% margin, Trump quite a bit less than that.  Hell, Chris Christie does as well against the Empress Dowager of Chappaqua as Trump!

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #437 on: November 23, 2015, 03:29:38 PM »
Online Polls have become much better in that past few years. But for the two most recent non-online media polls, both of which are anti Trump sources....clearly, he is gaining strength.

Sun Nov 23  -  WAPO 32% Trump and Carson 22%
                     Fox 28% Trump and Carson 18%

Nov 19        PPP (a democratic pollster) Trump 26 to Carson 19


But Trump is not the real issue. So answer this....

Why is 50% or more of the Party abandoning the professional politicians in the party and going for outsiders? Why do the people see a need to look elsewhere for someone to support? What is the Party missing out on that makes these people look elsewhere? 

These are the real questions that need to be answered by the GOPe. But the GOPe ignores the questions totally. Instead, the GOPe and their pundit supporters call those not following their lead "Vulgarians"?  And they ignore the causes of the desertion from the party.

There is a social divide in this country occurring now. It is breaking down along income, age and education. And it is reflected in this election on both sides.

Personally, I think that anyone who wants to be President beginning in 2017 is nuts. The coming implosion of the country is going to radically change the US. Who knows what the end result will be.

PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #438 on: November 23, 2015, 06:34:20 PM »
What is amazing to me is this:  If Jeb or Rubio had 35% of the people supporting either of them, the claims would be that the race is over. With Trump, the same people are trying to oust the Front Leader to foster people with 12% support. Go figure........


You're right. Some people like what Trump has to say, but stop short of being willing to get the job done, so they support others in the hope that it will sway other's opinions.

I'm all for Trump and thinnk he has a legitimate chance to win.

Even Hispanics that came legally aren't willing to give away their country. Imagine that.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #439 on: November 23, 2015, 09:40:26 PM »
"WAPO 32% Trump and Carson 22%
    Fox  28% Trump and Carson 18%"
--------------------------------------------

High floor, low ceiling.  He gained some strength because the terror and Syrian refugee issue fall right into his strength.  It also had great timing for Trump, coming the day after the news story of the so-called Iowa tirade.

The question for Trump is how to remove the low ceiling.  He needs maybe 51% to win in the general election.  To get that with any certainty he needs another 3-4 points of cushion.  He needs at least a minor electoral landslide to govern as a party outsider.  Obama 2008 won 53-46.  Reagan 1984 won 59-41.  Hillary is weaker than either of those losers; he needs to shoot for at least Obama 2008 type numbers.

But Trump has gotten to where he is with positions and an attitude that captivating for some while alienating the rest.  He is most certainly the nomination frontrunner, but there is no visible path the rest of the way up for him, the way most see it now.

ABC News, this favorability chart shows Trump at 38-59, 21 point underwater as of Nov 10.  A few points better now perhaps, since his poll numbers are up a bit, but really these are his numbers while things are going great in the nomination contest.  More striking than the 59% negative is that only 3% don't already have an opinion on him: (Carson has fallen since this poll.)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/carson-leads-popularity-trump-gop-poll/story?id=35084486

« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 09:48:26 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #440 on: November 23, 2015, 10:58:28 PM »
I was under the impression that Rubios favorability ratio was better than that but overall I think Doug's point about Trump's ceiling is quite sound.

Only one candidate going up against Hillary scores 50% and that is Rubio.  I know Pat sees Rubio as GOPe because GOPe can support him (especially over Trump!) but when Rubio ran and won for Senate it was scored as a Tea Party triumph.  He's only been in Washington a few years and has earned respect for his foreign policy chops.  Contrast Trump who a few weeks ago thought it OK to hand off the Middle East to Putin with nary a thought as to the Axis that Putin is forming.

I caught Trump on O'Reilly tonight and O'R was giving him some good advice about not re-tweeting unvetted data and Trump's attitude was "Whatever".   Within the Rep primaries he can get away with this because of the depth of Rep voter anger, but in the general it looks to be a different story.  There's a reason that his margin over Hillary is only 1-2 points greater than Christie.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #441 on: November 24, 2015, 07:04:37 AM »
Doug,

Thank you for posting this. It certainly suggests something to be concerned about.

CD,

Good catch on Rubio's favorability.....


Now, here is the rest of the story with this poll.

1. Margin of error on Pubs and Dems 6.00%.  Pure garbage, nothing else.

2. Partisan breakdown  33% Dem, 23% Rep, 37% Ind

Say what?  23% Pub?  This is absolute CRAP!  I can never remember seeing a poll using 23% or even one under 30% for Reps in any election.

This is an Agenda Driven poll, pure and simple. There is no other way to describe it. It was set up to push Carson's favorable ratings at the expense of everyone else.

As to land line vs on line polling, there is something to be aware of. Gallup stopped polling on the election because of the problems with live polling now. People no longer answer their phones, have only cell phones or refuse to conduct the survey.. They found that this pattern has for the past few cycles introduced a "confidence" problem in polling and they could not weight properly for this issue.

On line polls have gotten better because they sample large numbers of people, several thousand, and then they weight for the differences.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Donald Trump, favorability polling cont., party identity, donations, programs
« Reply #442 on: November 24, 2015, 09:54:24 AM »
Bloomberg, I know, another commie operation. They all are.   )

Trump favorability Nov. 15:  34-61,  -27

             up from Sept 15:  31-61, -24.   Or is that within the margin of error?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump: Need govt program to make college affordable
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/20/trump-says-we-need-some-governmental-program-to-help-make-college-affordable/
Maybe another government program would have averted the housing crisis too.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump 2004, "I identify more as a Democrat." 
"The economy seems to do better."
"Hillary, she's a lovely woman."  (Did I hear that right?  Who was he talking about?  When?  Why?!)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-election-democrat/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay Mr. Trump, put your money where your mouth is:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-donations-democrats-hillary-clinton-119071
Donated to Hillary in 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007.
Was she against illegal immigration?
Donated at least $100,000 to the Foundation.  Is that the best charity he could find?  If it was just to buy influence, is it deductible?

Also donated to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 cycle, effectively buoying the election prospects of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, respectively.  (25 times more than he gave to the Republicans)
For that, I will never forgive him.  That is not a the-parties-are-all-the same-view as expressed here on the forum.  The 2006 congressional election elevating Pelosi-Reid to majority and setting the table for Obama's election is what brought us Obamacare and all the rest.  He has explained his support flippantly.  Where is the apology to America?

Hastert-McConnell-Boehner didn't bring us Obamacare and more than 30 tax increases.  The parties are both flawed, but they are not the same!




ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #443 on: November 24, 2015, 10:18:51 AM »
We can go round and round on the polls and other things you cite, but...

But I ask the same question again, and still wait for a response.....

Why are 50% plus of the people in the Republican Party supporting outsiders like Trump and Carson? Why are they deserting the party?  Why is the GOP not responding to this and instead continue with the same old practices?
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #444 on: November 24, 2015, 11:54:59 AM »
We can go round and round on the polls and other things you cite, but...

But I ask the same question again, and still wait for a response.....

Why are 50% plus of the people in the Republican Party supporting outsiders like Trump and Carson? Why are they deserting the party?  Why is the GOP not responding to this and instead continue with the same old practices?

Everyone is dissatisfied with the status quo.  The early polls show people expressing that frustration.  And it has been consistent, ever since the yawn Jeb received when he jumped in early, and especially since Trump got in.  Also the stream of past nominees you cite as mediocre at best is true, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney.  Boehner was ineffective and cowardly.  McConnell, and so on.  Voting in the early primaries is about venting that frustration too, but this quickly becomes a task of finding out who among those we can support has the best chance to actually win and enact positive change.

People are supporting Carson for reasons different than those supporting Trump.  Still your point is valid.  Cruz and Rubio are not insiders either, no matter who ends up supporting them.  This has already narrowed down to 4 outsiders.

I was thinking Cruz is the most pure, but you look a little closer and see a little wavering and political opportunism.  Rubio will always carry the gang of 8 baggage.  If that is what defines him it will keep him from getting the nomination.  Trump seems to have been the most consistent in his positions in the campaign, but that history only goes back to this run for the Presidency.  That's why I posted some of those Democratic-tie references.  What the hell was he thinking about illegal immigration when he supported Pelosi-Ried-Obama-and Hillary to take the majority in Congress, and he succeeded.  That is not how you correct the mistake George W Bush made in not enforcing the border, or that Republicans made in growing spending and adding programs.  Did he come to his core principles in his mid-60s??  Trump was thinking of Trump.  It turns out he wants another government program to correct another overreach of government, announced in the last few days.  Good grief.  What was he thinking on the birther issue?   That was his lead issue prior to running for President.  But Obama's mom was from Kansas living in Hawaii.  Isn't Barack Obama still a citizen even if she gave birth offshore in a boat or traveling to Kenya?

Donald Trump is a successful television actor as much as he is a businessman.  When I look back at his recent political past, it makes me think he is playing a part right now.  He correctly identified a hot issue that gives him 25-35% primary support in a badly divided field.  He is having the time of his life living a dream of self-promotion and never imagined it would go this far.

How far will it go?  How does he remove the ceiling that is stopping him from going further?  By backtracking on what he says are core issues? By adopting a toned-down personality?  By suddenly developing an interest in the minutia of Kurds, Quds and his own tax plan?  No.  He is stuck where he is, and for the moment that is on top.

Pat, you believe more confidently than I do that Rubio will be the nominee.  That can only happen if this long time front runner cannot rise any higher and also only if others consolidate into one which right now looks like a long shot. 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #445 on: November 24, 2015, 11:56:59 AM »
Pat:

We are all on the same page with regard to GOPe and the deep and vast discontent with it; I'm not sure why you seem to think otherwise , , ,

All:

Herewith my current take on things.

I have defended Dr. Ben here from what I perceived to be unsound attacks, but always withheld my "support"-- wanting to see more.   Now that I have seen his foreign affairs, he no longer is a contender for my support.  Last night on The Kelly Show, he was given a chance to counter the damage done by his foreign affairs advisor.  He repeated other folks ideas ("Go after their money, go after their oil, build a coalition") but it was the final straw for me when he spoke of giving "the Iraqis" another chance/more arms and training and into the coalition.  IMO there no longer is such a thing as Iraq and the government of Baghdad Shiastan is a pawn of Iran.

I hope he stays in for a while though-- I am very much looking forward to his launch of his health care platform to replace Obamacare; it could well be the one around which the Reps should rally!

Rubio took on Charlie Crist when doing so seemed a huge overreach.  As a first time senator he has decided to run for President when his mentor Jeb was considered a shoo-in for the GOPe, thus giving up what was likely to be a secure a Senate seat.  Don't let the baby face fool you, the man does not lack for killer instinct in taking on the GOPe.   Note too his perfectly timed naming Hillary a "liar" in the debate.  

His whole message is quite Tea Party and quite American Creed.   Watched him this morning on FOX and was, as usual, very impressed with his political skills.  Extremely seamless in his ability to turn around questions designed to put him on the defensive and take the initiative (e.g. Aren't you like Baraq in being an inexperienced first term Senator?)  He has adjusted his immigration policies to something I am quite comfortable with (listen to what he is actually saying now) and stands to serve the Reps well with Latinos without compromising national integrity.  (Contrast Prop 187 here in CA where we "won" and became a permanent Dem state by so doing)  His repeated prescience on international issues gives him a good foundation from which to take on Hillary on her one pretense to competence and experience.

Tax policy is good but could be much better.

I'm digging Cruz a lot too.  I agree with Art Laffer's analysis of his tax proposal, as best as I can tell it is the best in the field and, UNLIKE TRUMP AND HIS PROPOSAL, he can defend and advocate it well.   Superb ability to keep track of Hillary's twists and turns, evasions, deceptions, and lies.  He too has what it takes to take her on and take her down in debate.  There's more, but I'm running out of time right now.

Trump? I've already said what I think and heartily second Doug's two immediately prior posts.  Love his attitude and think he has served the country and Reps well by shaking things up and leading the way when it comes to speaking fearlessly, but stupidities like thinking it was fine to have Putin handle Syria will give Hillary, who already maneuvers to put daylight between her and Baraq,  plenty of room to present herself as an experienced mature hand at the helm.  The accumulation of stupidities like retweeting unvetted data will bite him, and therefore us should he be candidate, in the ass.

Bottom line-- for me right now a toss up between Cruz or Rubio.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #446 on: November 24, 2015, 01:23:42 PM »
CD/Doug,

I keep asking why because it seems to me that neither of you understand why the attraction of Trump, other than as a celebrity type personality.

Now I don't understand how one can consider Rubio anything other than a GOPe candidate. The truth is that Rubio has always been the "fall-back" position for the GOP if Jeb failed. Why? The GOPe/Rove is still looking at the "Ohio/Florida/Virginia" strategy that they employed the last two cycles. Win two of those three states, and they win the electoral count and the presidency.  That is why Kasich still remains as a  potential VP.

When Doug states that "this long time front runner cannot rise any higher and also only if others consolidate into one which right now looks like a long shot", he ignores the "Splitter Strategy" that was developed in 2014 for promoting Jeb in 2016. Rove knew that Jeb could not win a majority of states, so you employ enough candidates to dilute the nomination process so that on the first ballot no one wins. that releases all delegates to go where they want, and then the candidates get "bribed" to through support to originally Jeb, but now Rubio. And if that route is not available to put Jeb/Rubio's name in nomination, then Rule 40 changes.

The GOPe is "machiavellian" in their thinking and will employ whatever means that they can to get their "loser" candidate in place.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #447 on: November 24, 2015, 05:54:47 PM »
Hard to see Rubio, the candidate with far and away the best numbers against Hillary as the "loser" candidate-- seriously Pat?  Especially when Trump is down within a point or two of Christie in his numbers against Hillary  :evil:

Look, I think I "get" Trump just fine.  I've repeatedly said many good things about him.  I also agree with the high floor, low ceiling analysis of his numbers. 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #448 on: November 24, 2015, 06:49:20 PM »
Check out Morning Consult and the other non-media polls. They say a completely different story about Trump, his support and that of his rivals.  As I keep saying, the polls are all about the internals. Polls like WSJ/NBC are not revealing the internals to any degree and that should tell you something.

I an not an expert on Statistical Analysis as compared to the pros, but I have learned one hell of a lot over the past three years evaluating 9 million GSE loans. And the biggest thing that I found is it is all about the assumptions that are made about the data. You change a data point here or there, and the results are totally different.

This election is going to about turnout and about cross over votes. Rubio will not motivate the base to get out the vote as needed, and he will certainly not pull cross over votes as needed. That is why he will lose. (Plus, if the GOPe does manipulate things to get him nominated, the Trump voters will stay home. Why bother when it is the GOPe playing games again?)

This is a fight for the soul of the party and for the future.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #449 on: November 27, 2015, 09:47:46 AM »
Happy Thanksgiving everybody. ...  Now back to it!

Previously I attacked Trump for supporting the election of the Pelosi-Obama-Hillary-Reid majority in Congress that brought grave damage to this country.  But in the big picture of things, his contributions did not cause that sea change.  I was just trying to expose something about him and his politics, not blame the events of history on him.

PP:  "if the GOPe does manipulate things to get him [Rubio, Bush, etc.] nominated, the Trump voters will stay home."

This post and similar insights such as that the two parties are no different help to explain why President Obama got a second term.  A certain number of voters who 'should' have been Republican voters stayed home in 2012, enough to swing the election to Obama.  Romney won the independents by a pretty wide margin.  When people who lean conservative can't see a difference between the parties and stay home, we all get leadership by Obama and Hillary.  My way or I'll leave the country means we lose the country.  [And not that many actually leave.]

What you call manipulation is what others would call getting involved in politics and trying to make a difference.  National and state partoies are mostly free to make their own rules about how delegates are allocated.  In that process, people are trying to advance the chances of their own candidate, trying to advance the clout of their own state, and trying to get the process to nominate the candidate most likely to unite and win in the general election.

Trump has a 22 point lead today. He has been included in all the debates.  What could possibly be unfair in the process to keep him from winning the nomination and the election?  Unless it is true that he has a low ceiling.  If it is true that somewhere around 35% is as high he can go in the party and the other 65% would prefer any of the others over Trump then that is not a level of support that wins nominations in any convention where I have participated.  

In a state convention, it normally takes a 60% support ballot to nominate and generally you stay until someone gets that.  It also might take a certain level of majority to change a rule like that.  At some point candidates with small and declining support drop out and try to get their delegates to support someone else.  The behind the scenes negotiations and out in the open posturing in that process is called politics, not 'manipulation'.     )
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 09:51:08 AM by DougMacG »