Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 471911 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #550 on: December 15, 2015, 01:32:31 PM »
There is a hell of a difference between cowering and self censoring, exercising Freedom of Speech, and with deliberating challenging and inviting them to attack.

Gellar did a deliberate act of provocation designed to lead to an attack. She knew what the expected response would be and planned for it.  Notice all of the people there who were armed and ready.  And the only two who died were the terrorists.

Again, what would have happened if innocents had been killed? Would Gellar also be held responsible? Should she be?

You don't and deliberately poke the bee hive...........


So, did the civil rights protesters murdered in the south poke "poke the bee hive"?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #551 on: December 15, 2015, 01:48:19 PM »
Come on.........apples to oranges.............

Yes, James Meredith and others were engaged in legitimate protests, but the protests were not designed to provoke a violent response. That is the difference between them and Gellar.

Take BLM and Ferguson. That was absolutely a direct provocation with Freedom of Speech used as an excuse. Should BLM be forgiven?

PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #552 on: December 15, 2015, 01:50:51 PM »
Come on.........apples to oranges.............

Yes, James Meredith and others were engaged in legitimate protests, but the protests were not designed to provoke a violent response. That is the difference between them and Gellar.

Take BLM and Ferguson. That was absolutely a direct provocation with Freedom of Speech used as an excuse. Should BLM be forgiven?



So, protest is only legitimate if there is no reasonable expectation of a violent reaction. Yes?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #553 on: December 15, 2015, 02:03:00 PM »
If it puts innocents in harm's way with an unnecessary threat, and is an invitation to violence, then it has gone too far in my opinion.

She knew what was going to happen and prepped for it.

There is no absolute right to Freedom of Speech.
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Heckler's veto
« Reply #554 on: December 15, 2015, 02:13:40 PM »
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HecklersVeto.aspx

Heckler's Veto Definition:
(USA) A controversial legal position taken by law enforcement officers based on an alleged right to restrict freedom of speech where such expression may create disorder or provoke violence.
Related Terms: First Amendment, Freedom of Expression, Speech


 
In Roe v Crawford, Justice Riley wrote:

"The heckler's veto involves situations in which the government attempts to ban protected speech because it might provoke a violent response. In such situations, the mere possibility of a violent reaction to protected speech is simply not a constitutional basis on which to restrict the right to speak."

In Startzell, Justice Sloviter made the court's repugnance for an alleged heckler's veto clear by adopting these words:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. In public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

"A heckler's veto is an impermissible content-based restriction on speech where the speech is prohibited due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience."

Similarly, in Hedges, Justice Easterbrook:

"The police are supposed to preserve order, which unpopular speech may endanger. Does it follow that the police may silence the rabble-rousing speaker? Not at all. The police must permit the speech and control the crowd. There is no heckler's veto. Just as bellicose bystanders cannot authorize the government to silence a speaker, so ignorant bystanders cannot make censorship legitimate."

REFERENCES:
Hedges v. Wauconda Community School District, 9 F. 3d 1295 (United States Court of Appeals, 1993)
Roe v. Crawford, 514 F. 3d 789 (United States Court of Appeals, 2007, at footnote 3)
Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F. 3d 183 (United States Court of Appeals, 2008)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #555 on: December 15, 2015, 02:15:42 PM »
If it puts innocents in harm's way with an unnecessary threat, and is an invitation to violence, then it has gone too far in my opinion.

She knew what was going to happen and prepped for it.

There is no absolute right to Freedom of Speech.


You do realize by rewarding violence you are creating an incentive system that rewards additional acts of violence to suppress constitutionally protected speech?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #556 on: December 15, 2015, 03:17:18 PM »
Aaah....but what if the Free Speech is designed to provoke the violence?

Essentially, what I trying to say in a poor manner obviously, is that even with the Bill of Rights, there is no absolute black or white. They are not absolute, but filled with potential exceptions that must be taken on a case by case basis.

99.99% of Freedom of Speech complaints have no merit. But there a cases where there is merit, at least in my opinion. But I differ from most here with my views in case you have not noticed. Just look at ED. I do have different viewpoints for sure.

Maybe it is because of what I do now, consulting on lawsuits in the financial arena. I look at both sides of the issue, determine the facts and what arguments exist on either side. Then I advise based upon case law, current regulations and the circumstances of the case. The one thing I have learned in this, for every compelling argument, there is usually one for the opposition and I just try to point it out.

I am only doing the same thing with Gellar. Does she have a right to free speech? Absolutely so! But can free speech cross a line? SCOTUS has rule it can.

So did it cross the line with Gellar?  Based upon my own opinions, when she deliberately acted in a manner to incite violence and knew it would happen, at least for me it crossed the line. However, others may have different opinions.

PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Trump's speech provoking violence
« Reply #557 on: December 15, 2015, 04:10:15 PM »

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #558 on: December 15, 2015, 09:25:25 PM »
It seems that the Ruling GOP elite and those that are accustomed to siphoning off independent and libertarian votes think that they can count on insulting Trump, and getting us to vote for someone else.... No thanks.

I'll be voting for Trump in 2016.   :mrgreen:

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #559 on: December 16, 2015, 11:03:05 AM »
Did anyone hear Pataki say President Trump?    :-D

I have heard this said "mistakenly" several times now. Don't hear President Rubio?

I am a Proud Trumpeter!
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, Hinderaker: Thinking the Unthinkable
« Reply #560 on: December 17, 2015, 10:42:03 AM »
Something to balance all these pro-DT things I have been posting follows.  

John Hinderaker or Powerline is neither establishment nor moderate, and doesn't control any puppets.  He is struggling with the choices just like people here are.  Powerline (Mirengoff in particular, but Hinderaker too) was the most ruthless of anyone on Rubio during the gang of 8 debate.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/thinking-about-the-unthinkable-2.php

DECEMBER 16, 2015 BY JOHN HINDERAKER
THINKING ABOUT THE UNTHINKABLE
It now seems fairly likely that Donald Trump will win the Republican presidential nomination. His success remains, to me, a puzzle. Watching him in the debate last night–I only caught the last portion–and in a post-debate interview, I thought he was a buffoon. His knowledge of the issues is almost non-existent, and I can’t tell whether he actually wants to be president, or is just campaigning as a lark.

But the bigger problem with Trump, in my mind, isn’t that he is unqualified, it is that he isn’t a conservative. Rather, he is a populist. Trump almost glories in his inability to answer questions with any insight or specificity, a classic populist characteristic. I will do a great job as president! Why? Because I’m me!

On the world stage, the politician who reminds me most of Trump is Vladimir Putin. Putin’s campaign slogan was, in effect, “Make Russia great again!” Has he done so? One would think not; Russia’s economy is a mess and the country is run by what in essence is a criminal gang. Yet Putin is very popular. His supporters think he has made Russia “great,” because Russia’s assertiveness in international affairs has discomfited the U.S. and other powers. And, much like Trump supporters, they love his macho shtick. This does not mean, of course, that a President Trump would govern anything like a Putin. He would not. But his appeal to American voters is similar to Putin’s appeal to Russian voters, and in each case, public policy has little to do with it.

Trump does not pretend to be a conservative. He was a registered Democrat for much of his adult life. He has said that he agrees with the Democrats on most issues, especially on the economy, and to my knowledge has never recanted. He has donated to numerous Democrats’ campaigns, including Hillary Clinton’s, and has praised Hillary effusively. On the other hand, his attitude toward the George W. Bush administration, the last Republican presidency, is viciously antagonistic, to the point where he blames Bush for the 2008 financial collapse.

If you check the positions he sets forth on his web site, you will find little of substance and little that is conservative. He offers a good tax plan, rather typical for a Republican candidate. He also defends Second Amendment rights, which is almost mandatory for a Republican. But there is nothing on how to shrink the federal government, and there is little reason to think that Trump, a developer who makes his living in bed with government, has any desire to do so. There is nothing on the burden of federal regulations, and nothing on energy policy. The social issues never come up. There is nothing on health care (except for veterans) and, remarkably, nothing on foreign policy other than U.S.-China trade. Compare Trump’s position statements with Marco Rubio’s and ask yourself who is the conservative in the race.

Even on immigration, the issue that, more than anything, has fueled Trump’s rise, he is a squish. Trump’s focus has been almost entirely on illegal immigration, while he has said next to nothing about our legal immigration system, a much bigger problem. On illegal immigration, he wants to deport millions of illegal immigrants, but then turn around and let them back in through the “big door” in his fence. As best I can tell, anyone who is not a convicted felon would get back in. The point of this is hard to see.

As for his popular call to suspend all travel or immigration of Muslim aliens into the U.S., his general idea is defensible, but as set forth by him his proposal is unworkable. There is no feasible way to find out whether one of the millions of aliens who enter the U.S. is a Muslim except by asking him. All a would-be terrorist has to do is say “No.” Trump doesn’t care enough to at least offer a workable proposal, such as suspending all immigration and issuance of visas to residents of Muslim-majority countries, perhaps with specified exceptions.

If Trump gets the nomination, this will be the first presidential race in quite a while in which neither party nominates a conservative. One could argue that was the case in 1988 and 1992, when George H.W. Bush ran against Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. I would say that Bush was a conservative, although a very moderate one, and certainly in 1992 Republicans had every reason to consider Bush a conservative who would continue the Reagan legacy.

Before that, you probably have to go back to 1968 and 1972, when Richard Nixon ran against Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. That, too, is questionable, as Nixon was undoubtedly conservative on some issues and was regarded by most of his contemporaries as a conservative, even though his presidential record is moderate at best, and liberal in some key areas.

In any event, what should principled conservatives do if neither party nominates a candidate of the right? I would certainly vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, but I think the most reasonable response is to provide no support to the non-conservative presidential candidate beyond the ballot, and focus instead on other races where true conservatives are running.

Apart from the fact that I don’t think he would make much of a chief executive, a Trump presidency could have the unfortunate effect of further disillusioning many on the right. Voters on the right often say that politicians lie, and sometimes, of course, they do. But usually the “lie” is a case of over-promising. When they are campaigning, conservatives, like liberals, often overstate what they will be able to accomplish in office. This engenders disappointment. But imagine if conservatives were to elect Trump under the misguided belief that he is one of them. He presumably won’t govern as a conservative; he hasn’t even promised to. More likely, he will govern in accordance with his belief that the Democrats are right on most issues, particularly the economy, and consistent with his acceptance of big government. I am afraid that conservatives who vote for Trump expecting something different will be in for a rude awakening, should he win.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #561 on: December 17, 2015, 11:40:20 AM »
What Hinderaker is missing out on is the obvious.....................the Trump supporters no longer care about the term conservative. They are voting important issues that concern them. And they are voting anti-party because the party is no longer conservative. 

Just look at the new budget proposal voted on in the Senate under Ryan? Is it a conservative budget? Hell, it gave Obama everything he wanted and  without opposition.

Hinderaker stated that only GHW Bush was the only non conservative in many cycles. What is his definition of conservative?

Dole?
McCain?
Romney?

They have liberal leanings in every which way.

Even Dubya was not much of a conservative. He passed Medicare Plan 4 and Prescription Drugs, let the budget go all to hell and all else.  Compassionate Conservatism..............Rockefeller Republican.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #562 on: December 17, 2015, 12:05:04 PM »
Some valid points there Pat, but this time around there ARE real conservative alternatives.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #563 on: December 17, 2015, 12:38:32 PM »
"Rockefeller Republican"

Even LBJ preferred Nelson over Humphrey according to Califano's book.  

Amazing huh?

W's self description was "compassionate" conservative.   Now Christie Todd Whitman calls herself a fiscal conservative (which she was not) and "socially tolerant".

All this implies that real conservatives were not socially tolerant or compassionate.  They want to keep down the masses for their rich friends.  

These Republicans do more to shoot themselves in the heart than any Cruz's, Trumps, Carsons, IMHO

They are like the hypocrites of the left.  Just look at Buffett, Gates, and the newbie world leader Zuckerberg.  The former two spent their lives living working capitalism to their advantage with remarkable success.  Gates in particular robbed and lied as much as any of them with his scorched Earth tricks.  Oh but now capitalism is bad and we should all buckle down for mankind.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 12:42:36 PM by ccp »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #564 on: December 17, 2015, 02:48:56 PM »
CD,

Alternatives only if you believe that Rubio and Cruz will stop illegal immigration and will not allow Amnesty.

PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #565 on: December 17, 2015, 03:36:25 PM »
My brothers from my squad are indeed my brothers...they're all Mexican.

I called my daughter in Russia this morning.... read the news in Russian.... Putin likes Trump and Russia isn't and never has been for sale or suffered liberals wanting to give it away to immigrants, defending their idiotic policies by screaming "racism," which is funny, because most racists I know are Liberal.

It's already too late for the US. People confuse "culture" with "race," and even amongst people more traditional, as with here, there are varying shades, and each....absolutely convinced that their perception is 100% correct.

You have people here that will tell you who can and cannot be armed, so long as they have access to weapons.... hypocrites.

I say we all be honest, divide the country into roughly two to three zones, Liberal, Conservative and a third where anything goes.....and see how things work out.

People will act like someone not liking Obama for being Black is a big deal, but don't even question Blacks using derogatory remarks or Mexicans wanting a Latino president..... to hell with them and their double standards.

Other people will act like because they are a lawyer or whatnot, that they somehow know more about life than you do.... also laughable as we all have our own experiences.

I would have guarded any dictator zealously, so long as he came from my "camp."

Trump is the only one telling it like it is.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 03:38:44 PM by DDF »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #566 on: December 17, 2015, 07:03:31 PM »
Chelsea's dad, Web Hubbell says 50% of Republicans will flock to Hillary if Trump is the nominee.   Remember back in '08 when Bill said a "black man couldn't win" and within hours nearly the entire black vote shifted from Hillary to Brock? (except for Donna Brazille who is on the payroll)

That could happen here too.   Dems laughing that 50% of Republicans will switch and vote for Hillary?  May instead piss them off to vote for the nominee, Trump Cruz or Rubs.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #567 on: December 17, 2015, 07:11:25 PM »
Obama was an inevitable after Bush as Carter was after Nixon/Ford.  It did not matter who the competition would be, none could win.  For Hillary, that is not the case.

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
The WSJ analysis of Trump
« Reply #568 on: December 18, 2015, 02:01:41 PM »
Elections are about more than counting votes. They reveal peoples to themselves. They are democracy’s mirror. And what we see is often disconcerting.

In 2015, for the first time in decades, an angry, disaffected U.S. white working class has found its voice. Xenophobia, nationalism and bigotry are the dominant tones, so it is tempting for the rest of us to turn away in dismay. We should resist that temptation, because underlying the harsh words are real problems that extend well beyond our shores.

Throughout the West, democratic governments are struggling to maintain a postwar order premised on prosperity and economic security. Since the onset of the Great Recession, established center-right and center-left parties have failed to meet that test, opening the door to the far left and the populist right. From Hungary to France to Poland (long regarded as the poster-child for postcommunist democratization), illiberal populism is on the rise.

Western democracies may be on different decks, but we are all in the same boat. In a world of mobile capital and global labor markets, we have not figured out how to maintain jobs and incomes for workers with modest education and skills. In Europe the result has been sustained double-digit unemployment and a generation of young adults on the economic margins. The U.S. has made a different choice: large numbers of low-wage jobs that don’t offer the promise of upward mobility.

Beneath the dry statistics of the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we can see that future emerging. Over the next decade, the service sector will provide 95% of all the new jobs. Manufacturing, which shed more than two million jobs between 2004 and 2014, will shrink by an additional 800,000, to only 7% of the workforce. Of the 15 occupations with the most projected job growth, only four ask for a bachelor’s degree; eight require no formal education credentials; nine offer median annual wages under $30,000.

Few Americans know these statistics, but most of them are living the reality they represent. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the economy has ceased to work for households at and below the middle. A recent report from the Pew Research Center finds that the median income for middle-income households is about where it was in 1997. For lower-income households, median income stands where it did in 1996.

When we look at wealth, the picture is even darker. Since the early 1980s, adjusted for inflation, the median net worth of upper-income families has almost doubled. For middle-income families, by contrast, the story has been stagnation: $96,000 in 1983, $98,000 in 2013. Lower-income families had under $12,000 three decades ago, and even less today.

Baseline macroeconomic projections offer little hope that the next decade will be much different. Echoing estimates from several other sources, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects annual growth of only 2.2%. This reflects a dramatic slowdown in the growth of the labor force. Between 1994 and 2004, the workforce expanded by 12.5%, compared with a projected 5% in the coming decade. The reason is straightforward: With an aging population reaching retirement age, departures from the labor force nearly counterbalance new entrants.

In fact, we are undergoing a historic demographic shift. Throughout the 1990s, the entire baby-boom generation was between 25 and 54 years old—the prime working years. Starting in 2001, the oldest boomers began aging out of that range. By 2019, every baby boomer will be 55 or older, and the share of Americans in prime working years will continue to decline.

Conservative populism in America is a complex phenomenon. Compared with Europeans, Americans have long been less inclined to respect elites. The demographic transformation set in motion by immigration reform half a century ago has reached critical mass, and many white Americans fear that the country in which they grew up is disappearing.

From labor unions to the family, institutions undergirding working-class security have weakened. The U.S. remains immensely powerful, but it no longer bestrides the world like a colossus. The 9/11 attacks 14 years ago smashed the post-Cold War Americans’ confidence that the continent was safe from attack; the Dec. 2 San Bernardino slaughter has reawakened this sense of vulnerability.

Economic anxiety, demographic resentment and fears for physical security make a toxic combination. Donald Trump didn’t create these sentiments. Like demagogues throughout history, he is exploiting them for his own purposes.

The message to the Republican establishment is clear: If you cannot find a responsible way of responding to the concerns of voters you have spent decades attracting to your party, you will lose control—and you will deserve to.

But there is also a message for the professional elites who have flocked to the Democratic Party: Cultural liberalism is not enough. Without a plan that offers the hope of a better life for Americans born to fewer advantages, populism, not progressivism, could capture the future.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #569 on: December 18, 2015, 05:14:21 PM »
"Economic anxiety, demographic resentment and fears for physical security make a toxic combination. Donald Trump didn’t create these sentiments. Like demagogues throughout history, he is exploiting them for his own purposes."

What does this mean, "like demagogues throughout history"

So Trump who is just saying what many people think is a "demagogue"??   What about Brock or Hillary?

Not a peep about the contribution made by this guys Wall Street friends to the hollowing out the middle class with endless paying people less and less while they wring out every dime they can from their ever enlarging companies and bringing in competition from overseas who are willing to work for less.

Remember Ford when he wanted to give every working man a "living" wage - $5/hour?

Now it is how they give every man as little as they can without almost any hope of doing better.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Why take Krauthammer or other establishment types seriously?
« Reply #570 on: December 18, 2015, 06:14:37 PM »
Once again this early supporter of Mondale and Jimmy Carter shows why many call him an establishment elitist.  Mock Trump and mock millions of voters including me.

So really now.  We should not adjust the 14 th amendment to exclude people taking advantage of a law that was intended to protect Blacks who were slaves and Chinese and Indians not to allow anyone to step off a plane, a boat, a bus give birth and then demand they all stay so as not to break up families.  News for ya Charles; being American never was meant to be stupid or a sucker.  Being tolerant is one thing.  Being a moron is another.

So Charles thinks Trump prevented the GOP from an all out takedown of Obama (and Hillary) policies of dealing with ISIS.  Oh really?  Like how just would these GOP candidates do a "take down" of Obama that is going to win an election?

Why take Charles and other establishment types seriously I ask?

If you want to bother here is Krauthammer's brilliant logic here:



**** Why take Trump seriously?
 
Donald Trump speaks in Columbus, Ohio, on Nov. 23. (Paul Vernon/Associated Press)

By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer December 10   

So how exactly does this work, Donald Trump’s plan to keep America safe from Islamic terrorism by barring entry to all Muslims? He explained it Tuesday on TV. The immigration official will ask the foreigner if he’s a Muslim.

“And if they said, ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?”

Trump: “That’s correct.”

Brilliant. And very economical. That is, if you think that bloodthirsty terrorists — “people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” as Trump describes them — will feel honor-bound to tell the truth to an infidel customs officer. They kill wantonly but, like George Washington, cannot tell a lie. On this logic hinges the great Maginot Line with which Trump will protect America from jihad.

I decline to join the chorus denouncing the Trump proposal as offensive and un-American. That’s too obvious. What I can’t get over is its sheer absurdity.

Condemnation came quickly to Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Here are some notable comments. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

[Zakaria: Trump’s views appall me not because I’m Muslim, but because I’m American]

Here’s a suggestion (borrowed from my Fox News colleague Chris Stirewalt) to shore it up. At every immigration station at every airport in America , we will demand that every potential entrant — immigrant, refugee, student or tourist — eat a bacon sandwich. You refuse? Back home you go!

True, the Stirewalt Solution casts the net a bit wide, snaring innocent vegetarians and Orthodox Jews. But hey, as Trump said Tuesday , “We’re at war — get it through your head.” Can’t get squeamish about collateral damage.

Dozens of others have already pointed out how strategically idiotic is Trump’s exclusion principle. Absent a renewed Christian crusade against radical Islam — with those fabulous Hollywood-wardrobe tunics — the war on terror will be won only in alliance with moderate Muslims. Declaring them anathema is not the best beginning to coalition-building.

To take but the most obvious example: Our closest and most effective allies on the ground in the Middle East are the Kurds. Trump would turn them back at the Orlando airport. No Disney World for them. Or does he not know that they are Muslim?

It is embarrassing even to embark on such arguments. To treat “no Muslims allowed” as a serious idea is to give credit to what is little more than a clever stunt by a man who saw Ted Cruz beating him for the first time in the Iowa Monmouth poll and five hours later decided it was time to seize the stage again.

This got the thinkers going again. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, whom I (otherwise) hold in considerable esteem, spent 1,000 words trying to tart up the ban in constitutional and statutory livery, stressing — hilariously — that he is dealing with the Trump proposal “in its final form.” As if Trump’s barstool eruptions are painstakingly vetted, and as if anything Trump says about anything is ever final.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is not one to back down readily from controversial statements, and the list of those he dislikes continues to grow.

Take his Syria policy. In September, he said we should wash our hands and just let Russia fight the Islamic State. Having, I assume, been subsequently informed that Vladimir Putin’s principal interest — and target — is not the Islamic State but the anti-Assad rebels, Trump now promises to “bomb the s---” out of the Islamic State.

I’m sure there’s a Trump apologist out there working to explain the brilliant complementarity of these two contradictory strategies. Just as a few months ago there was a frenzy of learned scholarship about the constitutional history of the 14th Amendment following another Trump eruption — the abolition of birthright citizenship.

Whatever the final outcome, Trump’s campaign has already succeeded, indelibly affecting both this race and the Republican future. At a time of economic malaise at home and strategic collapse abroad, Trump has managed to steer the entire GOP campaign into absurdities, like mass deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants, and impossibilities, like the exclusion of Muslims from our shores.

“No Muslims allowed” is the perfect example. President Obama’s Oval Office address on Sunday night marked a new low in his presidency. The shopworn arguments, the detached tone, the willful denial that there might be anything wrong with his policy were deeply unsettling for left, right and center. Even the New York Times had to admit “Obama’s Plans to Stop ISIS Leave Many Democrats Wanting More,” which is Timesese for Democrats Stunned by Vacancy in the Oval Office. Here was an opportunity for the Republican field to launch an all-out takedown of the Obama (and Hillary Clinton) foreign policy.

Within less than a day, that opportunity was wiped out. Once again, it’s the Donald Show.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 08:51:41 PM by ccp »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #571 on: December 18, 2015, 06:53:22 PM »
Charles is an absolute elitist GOPe hack.

1. When Trump said ask them, has anyone thought that he was being sarcastic? What did this fool and others think he should do? Say exactly how these people would be vetted, checked out? If so, our enemy would develop other strategies to get around the checks, Hell, they are alread using fake passports, etc.

2. The 14th Amendment does not need to be changed. It needs to be correctly enforced. Forget the 1985 SCOTUS case where a dissenting opinion stated the case for anchor babies which did not have the power of law behind it. Enforce the damned law properly.

3. Break up the families? No need to. The anchor babies are here unlawfully. Send them back with the rest of the family.

4. On Syria, let the Russians handle things. Then if they can't and need the help, we go in all Jacksonian and kill, kill, kill. Fight like in WW2, or else not at all.

5. The Kurds......what a false argument. The Kurds don't want to come here. They want weapons so they can fight and save their homeland. What part of this does Bride of Chuckie not get.  Oh, that's right. He is just parroting what he has read elsewhere without giving it any reasoned thought.

6. And the ban would be temporary until new processes could be figured out. But our brave and bold GOP Senators and Rep don't want to do anything that could invite criticism, or even worse, Obama whining at them.  The cowards!!!

7. Take down Obama? They haven't challenged him on anything else. Look at the damned Budget that just passed. They gave everything away to Obama that he wanted. Any of the candidates actually challenged him? Only with a sound bite, and while doing so, pissing their pants.

Charles is a joke. I can't listen or look at that idiot anymore.

PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #572 on: December 18, 2015, 08:57:27 PM »
"Take down Obama? They haven't challenged him on anything else. Look at the damned Budget that just passed."

Exactly.  What a joke.  If it weren't for  Trump Krauthammer implies says the greats of the GOP, Bush, Kasich, Ryan, McConnel, and the rest would have been able to destroy Obama politically.

Quite frankly.  He has his head on backwards.   Looking at it with my head on straight if it not for Trump we wouldn't even be discussing immigration, what China is doing to us, or *Muslim* Jihadists.
So to say the establishment types would be taking down Obama is already proven to have never taken place - despite retaking the Senate and increasing the lead in the House.  The Senate is still run by Democrats. How is that possible?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #573 on: December 19, 2015, 07:32:30 AM »
Someone just said again that Trump support has hit the ceiling and can't go any higher.

I say time to "Raise the Ceiling.........again!"

  :evil: :evil: :evil:

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #574 on: December 19, 2015, 08:43:04 AM »
"The Senate is still run by Democrats. How is that possible?"

Filibuster.

I'm open to the nuclear option on some of the issues in play here.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #575 on: December 19, 2015, 09:06:51 AM »
Why didn't Reps ever use the filibuster when the Dems controlled everything?
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #576 on: December 19, 2015, 09:31:06 AM »
"Why didn't Reps ever use the filibuster when the Dems controlled everything?"

I'm under they impression they did e.g. on Obamacare but the Dems did an evasionary end run via budget reconciliation.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Donald Trump drops 16 points against Hillary in one month
« Reply #577 on: December 20, 2015, 10:07:52 AM »
Per a FOX News poll, last month he was 5 points up against her.  This month he is down 11.

 :-o :-o :-o

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #578 on: December 20, 2015, 10:33:10 AM »
Well he has no support from his party as well as the propaganda machine from the msm.

But that said if he cannot improve these numbers I cannot support him even though I often agree with him.  I agree with CD and Doug, we cannot let Hillary win.

Unfortunately I agree with him on immigration and temporarily suspending new Muslims from coming to the US.

But we cannot even win those battles without the independents and "rightish" leaning Reagan Democrats and a least some minorities.

Unless Trump can do better with these people he is done for.

I just don't want the whole country taken down with him.   If Hillary is in for 4 or 8 years.....

OTOH there is an excellent chance of some major catastrophic event coming in the next few years so maybe it is better to let the Dems take that fall.  But that is a big if and conjecture all the way around.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #579 on: December 20, 2015, 11:05:55 AM »
There lies the difference with you and I. When I look at the last few decades and the march towards larger and larger government, and then look at debacles like the Ryan Omnibus, what is the difference between the parties. They all say one thing and do another.

Let's say Hillary wins but the Pubbies retain control of the House and the Senate. How much influence would Hillary have? If you think a lot, then it means that you would expect the House and Senate to continue to give in and not fight her, just like Obama. And if that is so, what the hell good are they?  (Sure, she could try the Executive Order bit, but if the Pubbies had any balls, they could put an end to that.)

Why does the Party faithful not support Trump? Because they know that if Trump gets nominated, the GOP gets changed permanently. The power of the Party transfers to the base and not the Establishment. Any if Trump is nominated and loses, then the GOPe can say, "See, we told you so", and thus keep their power. That is why so many are coming out and suggesting that they would vote Hillary and not Trump.

This is a battle for the soul of the Party. It is the middle class base versus the elites and the future of the Party.

Frankly, I expect that we are going to see a major 2008 type collapse again, housing, financial and who knows what else? When it hits, everything will change anyway, whether it be social, economic or political systems. Might as well get it over quickly and start rebuilding.

(BTW, if it is Rubio or Cruz as the nominee and either loses to Hillary, which I expect, the GOP is finished anyway. It will be seen as the GOPe having steered the Party to another "electable" nominee, who once again lost. At that point, Trump becomes the leader of the Party no matter what, and even though he does not run again. The times, they are a changin'.)

PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1058
    • View Profile
Phyllis Schlafly: "Trump Is America's Last Hope"
« Reply #580 on: December 20, 2015, 04:58:52 PM »

PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY: TRUMP IS 'LAST HOPE FOR AMERICA'

'I don't see anyone else who's eager to fight'

World Net Daily - December 20, 2015


Phyllis Schlafly, an icon of the conservative movement who has been active for half a century, is warning the nation: Donald Trump is the last hope for America.

Schlafly unloaded on Republicans in Congress for passing the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill last week, a move she called a “betrayal.”

“This is a betrayal of the grassroots and of the Republican Party,” Schlafly said in an exclusive interview with WND. “We thought we were electing a different crowd to stand up for America, and they didn’t. We’re extremely outraged by what Congress has done. Nancy Pelosi couldn’t have engineered it any better. I think the people are going to react by electing Donald Trump.”

Trump put out a statement Friday to ABC News saying, “If anyone needs more evidence of why the American people are suffering at the hands of their own government, look no further than the budget deal announced by Speaker Ryan. In order to avoid a government shutdown, a cowardly threat from an incompetent president, the elected Republicans in Congress threw in the towel and showed absolutely no budget discipline.”

Trump continued, “Congress cannot seem to help itself in bending to every whim of special interests. How can they face their constituents when they continue to burden our children and grandchildren with debts they will never be able to repay? Our government is failing us, so we must do something about it. Who knows how bad things will be when the next administration comes in and has to pick up the pieces?”

Schlafly applauded the GOP front-runner’s fighting spirit.

“It sounds like Donald Trump is the only one who has any fight in him,” she said. “He will fight for the issues that we really care about and are very hot at the present time, such as the immigration issue. I don’t see anyone else who’s eager to fight.”

The Republican-controlled Congress just sold America down in river in the “worst kind of betrayal,” Schlafly told WND.

“It’s the worst kind of a betrayal because we thought we elected a bunch of good guys who would shape up the party,” she said. “We had a lot of fancy promises that the Republicans were going to shape up and change course. And they disappointed us. Betrayal is an appropriate word to describe it.”

WND asked Schlafly if she believes Donald Trump is the last hope for America.

“He does look like he’s the last hope [for America],” Schlafly said. “We don’t hear anybody saying what he’s saying. In fact, most of the people who ought to be lining up with him are attacking him. They’re probably jealous of the amount of press coverage he gets. But the reason he gets so much press coverage is the grassroots are fed up with people who are running things, and they do want a change. They do want people to stand up for America. It really resonates when he says he wants to ‘Make America Great Again.’”

Schlafly said it’s not only Republicans who feel betrayed, but Democrats, too.

“They are betrayed,” she said. “There’s no doubt about it. The working man and woman have been betrayed by both parties. They’re ready for a change … anything they think would be better.”

The conservative superstar also blasted leaders of both parties who advocate lax immigration policies while American workers continue to struggle in a tepid economy.

“The rich guys are putting the money in. They want to bring in the low-wage people. That’s the way they think they’ll make money,” she said. “But that’s not the way America will prosper. America was built because we had a great growing and prosperous middle class. We need to rebuild that again. I’m willing to give a new try to somebody else.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/top-conservative-trump-is-last-hope-for-america/#aEW0gY9owK0jpyyd.99
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #581 on: December 20, 2015, 07:00:37 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Phyllis Schlafly: "Trump Is America's Last Hope"
« Reply #582 on: December 20, 2015, 07:35:29 PM »
I respect and admire Phyllis Schlafly, a family friend who I agree with on all but a couple of issues.  She is a Pat Buchanon conservative, previous endorsements that always resulted in a Clinton being elected.  Leans toward protectionism 'fair trade' over 'free trade' and tends to oppose all trade bills.  Thrilled over his TPP opposition and probably right about it. The difference being that I'm sure she has read it and Trump hasn't.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #583 on: December 20, 2015, 08:07:20 PM »
PP:  "There lies the difference with you and I. When I look at the last few decades and the march towards larger and larger government, and then look at debacles like the Ryan Omnibus, what is the difference between the parties. They all say one thing and do another."

We agree on this.  I just saw the movie 'Divergent' on cable.   The parallel analogy of  the fictional "Erudites" in the movie, and the Progressive liberal elites is astounding.  I don't know if author of the novel the movie is based on (Veronica Ross) meant this to be political indictment of the modern Democrat party and how it is heading towards using mind control to take over the rest of us but that is precisely what is happening to us in real life.   In the movie and in real life people lose their freedoms and are controlled and told how to act.   

PP:  "Let's say Hillary wins but the Pubbies retain control of the House and the Senate. How much influence would Hillary have? If you think a lot, then it means that you would expect the House and Senate to continue to give in and not fight her, just like Obama. And if that is so, what the hell good are they?  (Sure, she could try the Executive Order bit, but if the Pubbies had any balls, they could put an end to that.)"

This has been the history for the last 25 years.

PP: "This is a battle for the soul of the Party. It is the middle class base versus the elites and the future of the Party."

True but I am not sure exactly where Trump fits in to redefining the soul of the party as you put it.  Yes he speaks about stopping the illegal flood and even reversing it and other things we like but I am just not sure what his principals are.  When Levin interviewed way back, he asked him what his definition of a conservative was.  Trumps answer was rather vague.  So to me the future of the Republican party under Trump remains an "open book"

PP:  (BTW, if it is Rubio or Cruz as the nominee and either loses to Hillary, which I expect, the GOP is finished anyway. It will be seen as the GOPe having steered the Party to another "electable" nominee, who once again lost. At that point, Trump becomes the leader of the Party no matter what, and even though he does not run again. The times, they are a changin'.)

First, at this point in time at least Cruz is leading Hillary Clinton while Trump lags.  Secondly if Trump loses we are in just as much deep doodoo. 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #584 on: December 21, 2015, 07:14:52 AM »
Yes, if Trump loses as a legitimate candidate and the GOPe votes for him, you are correct. We will still have the same problems. But if the GOPe does not support him and does not vote or else votes for Hillary, the end of the GOP is there anyway.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #585 on: December 21, 2015, 09:14:00 AM »
Speaking of Trump and Trump getting out, this of course comes from the same people who said he would get out earlier over and over etc.  But it is true that he has not yet shown a willingness to put his own money into it.   I know it's expensive to fly a 757 around but he is also only doing his own, named events, called it in for Meet the Press yesterday (tacky), for example.  He says he is worth what, 11 billion?  That probably means 6-8 billion on an average day, and 95-99% of that not liquid.  Further it has to be costing him to be away from the business unless he was just a figurehead and his business runs on cruise control anyway, and no business does.   You can't do any good government takings while you're running for President.  Offsetting that on the positive side is that he is getting the biggest name promotion possible.  Offsetting that on the negative is that properties in Dubai etc aren't going to be unaffected by his call to keep all Muslims out of all western countries starting with the United States.  His call to round up Mexicans in this country and send them back hurts him there, and his call to threaten trade wars hurts him there and elsewhere.  Trump has to be making many calculations everyday.  He did not know it would go this far.

This is way too much fun for him now and he is still leading in the nomination contest and still increasing his lead, so he isn't about to drop.  But when the momentum turns against him, and it will, these things always tighten up, being a shrewd businessman, he will see the writing on the wall first before we do and poof, he will say hey, I'm a great man, I made my point, and now have better things to do.  Also he is 69, pushing 70, like Hillary.  This can't be that easy and parts of it aren't fun.   Shifting away from being himself to conventionalizing to be more acceptable to more people will NOT be fun and it won't work. Serving one term and handing it back to the Dems is of no use either.  Serving two terms plus two years campaigning is a BIG part of any President's life, even bigger than running TCCE, Trump CronyCapitalism Enterprises.  It is crazy to start the hardest job and most demanding job in the world in your 70s IMHO.  And he is smart enough to know that if you do it half-assed, you will be a failure deserving of all the insults he throws at Obama, Hillary and everyone else.

This is going to get interesting (if it isn't already).
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 09:40:27 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Trump and his money problems continued. )
« Reply #586 on: December 21, 2015, 09:36:52 AM »
Doing my own math for Trump if he suddenly wants to fund his campaign with small contributions instead of self funding:

There are no more than 120,000,000 voters paying attention right now (really about a tenth of that).
40% of those are Republican and 30% of those support Trump. (adjust slightly to get your own result)
It would take a $70 contribution from everyone of those 14.4 million to raise the billion he needs.
Not going to happen, so now he needs big donors just like everyone else, or to do it without money, or the unthinkable, sell of Trump assets.  (not going to happen, and even it did the perception is that the big money buyer is funding his campaign.)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #587 on: December 21, 2015, 09:48:13 AM »
In a related vein, he is going after Hillary as having low vitality, but his idea of a campaign trip is to ride the elevator down to his lobby or to take a limo to one of the TV studios around NY.  Not a criticism, for sure it's shrewd, but in point of fact his travel load right now is super light in comparison to the others.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Trump and his 'Marketing' challenge
« Reply #588 on: December 21, 2015, 10:30:24 AM »
PP made a long, thoughtful post on 2016 Presidential recently about marketing:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2419.msg92581#msg92581

The Trump product IS marketing.

He won't have different marketing for the general election, he will be selling a different product, IMHO.

At his launch where he had to pay people to attend, he boldly announced an all out war on illegal immigration out of the blue, addressing an unserved market that everyone else either feared or underestimated.  The rest of his product is his personality, having the boldness to say things that excite some and shock the rest.  Also his product is that he is a better candidate and sharper on all issues than expected.  Not better and sharper than the others, but better than expected.

Events have turned his way.  Immigrants, foreigners and illegals have attacked us in a way that is exaggerated by media coverage.  (14 deaths in San Bern compares with how many murders in Chicago, how many abortions, how many traffic fatalities, etc.)

Even though he leads by almost triple, none of us here see how he gets to the nomination.  When he doubles down on what got him this far he doubles down on negatives and opposition too.  He also carries a constant risk of committing a gaffe or foot in mouth bigger than the ones we have seen so far as he continues.  The nuclear triad is a gotcha question, really?

Also the more he is himself in the way it got him this far, the more his general election number fail him, and those HAVE TO improve if he wants the 60% non-Trump side of the party to start breaking his way.

So there is no visible path for him to win (and no visible path for the others either at this point).  But let's say he gets the nomination since he is so far out in front.  Then what?

I know what happens next.  He guilts R's into supporting him no matter what he says while he shifts back to his other self who has said all along, I am independent not a Republican.  I've always identified more as a Democrat, just not a Bernie Sanders and new-Hillary Socialiast-Democrat.  So he is the perfect crossover, (Republican sellout) candidate.  He has a chance to win because Hillary really is that bad.

Pat worries that Rubio will be a sellout.  I believe Trump won't have to sellout to be a sellout to switch sides.  He won't even deport a single otherwise law abiding illegal, never really said he would, at least not when pressed for specifics.  He never said he would shrink government.  He supports greater powers for government.  He will build the biggest and strongest government we have ever seen.  He has been all over the map on taxes and that goes through congress anyway.  If Republicans are weak other than Trump, the Senate goes to the Dems anyway.  Obamacare stays, new taxes to 'balance the budget' and spending at levels that would John Boehner blush.  Affirmative action and all leftist social issues?  No problem.

How will we know if he betrays us.

---------------------------------------
"... a mature product stage should soon materialize and the new product brought in.

...he came in as a new product, saying the things that others were afraid to say, but believed. He gained initial support, but still garnered heavy resistance. Once it was confirmed that he was in to stay, support increased because the product was gaining acceptance and credibility.

Promotional marketing continued with a massive media campaign, funded by the media itself, increasing product exposure and gaining more support. Product comparison  tests (the debates) further cemented the differences over competing products, gaining further acceptance.  Current events (San Bermardino) reflected a further need for the product and support edged upward.

Now, the promotional phase has ended so a new marketing strategy must be implemented to keep from going stale and maturing.  There is evidence of it already being implemented……..

1.   The statement that the product would not challenge as a 3rd party candidate, but would work and believed in the party.

2.   A mellowing of statements in rallies and showing a more subdued personality that previously exhibited.

3.   Smaller Town Hall meetings where in more intimate settings, the products true personality showed through.

4.   Today’s statement that the product would be less devisive.

5.   Going after the other Party candidate.

The purpose of these changes are to expand market segment and favorability.

What is interesting is that he is now transitioning himself to being the Party Leader. This transition is being helped by the other candidates themselves by echoing his positions after having had other positions.  

Interesting also is that this transition is taking place while he is still gaining support. He is doing this before he hits the mature stage, the mark of a master marketeer. ..."

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #589 on: December 21, 2015, 11:57:34 AM »
We can see the affect Trump has had on Cruz.  Ask Cruz a position question, he says,"I have the same view as Trump".

PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #590 on: December 21, 2015, 12:23:55 PM »
We can see the affect Trump has had on Cruz.  Ask Cruz a position question, he says,"I have the same view as Trump".



You are talking about the Trump of the past few months and not the liberal Trump of decades, right?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #591 on: December 21, 2015, 01:18:24 PM »
Zang!


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #592 on: December 21, 2015, 02:40:23 PM »
You mean the "Democrat" Trump of 1988 who spoke at the Republican National Convention?

 :evil:
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #593 on: December 21, 2015, 02:50:38 PM »
[youtube][/youtube]
You mean the "Democrat" Trump of 1988 who spoke at the Republican National Convention?

 :evil:

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tjLWjdqXXRE[/youtube]

I don't know, did he look like that guy in the YouTube video?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tjLWjdqXXRE

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #594 on: December 21, 2015, 07:12:32 PM »
For DMG and CD,

Proof that Trump has hit his ceiling............ :-D :-D

Packed to the rafters.......better raise the ceiling...........don't see Cruz or Rubio getting this type of reception......but Trumpeters are only there to see a celeb.....as the pundits will tell you.  They are not voters.



PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #595 on: December 22, 2015, 07:57:37 AM »
For DMG and CD, ... packed to the rafters.......


Impressive but not quite Grant Park, 2008.  Crowds can and often do get it wrong.


Unfair comparison here, but crowd enthusiasm is not always the best measure of good policies:

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #596 on: December 22, 2015, 08:26:00 AM »
But it is a measure of support and motivation.

Of course, we could look at Jeb and his "rallies". They can be held in a hotel restroom.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #597 on: December 22, 2015, 09:04:49 AM »
But it is a measure of support and motivation.

Of course, we could look at Jeb and his "rallies". They can be held in a hotel restroom.

Not the main hotel restroom either.  )

It reminds me of the precinct caucus here.  We have an all Republican town on the outskirts of Minneapolis with a population 1400.  We get no caucus turnout, no volunteer workers and no enthusiasm for the party, real conservatives or RINOs.  Yet just a small boost in turnout here would have prevented the Al Franken false recount, prevented the Dems from getting their 60th Senator, and stopped Obamacare before it was ever deemed passed.

Got to hand it to the Trump supporters for showing they care.  The one I know is doing a excellent job of defending and supporting him!

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #598 on: December 22, 2015, 09:29:19 AM »
Gotta keep you honest.

Seriously.......you only know one person supporting Trump?

I wonder how many people you know that actually do support Trump, but are afraid to say so. I have noticed that people are afraid to mention their support for him, until another supporter comes forward. Then you hear the sigh of relief that they are not alone.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #599 on: December 22, 2015, 09:52:55 AM »
Gotta keep you honest.

Seriously.......you only know one person supporting Trump?

I wonder how many people you know that actually do support Trump, but are afraid to say so. I have noticed that people are afraid to mention their support for him, until another supporter comes forward. Then you hear the sigh of relief that they are not alone.

My cousins in Iowa fit the profile - so I am afraid to ask.

Interesting to hear how anti-Trump the college campus is even though my daughter goes to a less liberal school than most.  It would be pathetic to lose the youth vote to Hillary when we have a younger, more dynamic candidate available to reach out to them.  Is Hillary and 4-8 more years of the same really what is best for the 18-34 crowd?  Is it what is best for blacks and Hispanics?  Let's get serious and reach these people with a message that resonates.