I was right: President Elect Trump

[uncle23]

.......



...i totally agree with dj on this.....and i decided that not ever to use liberal, conservative, socialist and communist again.....



back to the topic----i can't get used to a president Trump.....

[tallguy]

back to the topic----i can't get used to a president Trump.....

Me neither.  Fortunately, I don't think we'll have to.

edit: lastly, i am wealthy beyond the dreams of most people. i have nothing to envy, and nothing to steal.

It might do you good to share a little of that.  Not with everyone, of course.  You're not...(shudder) socialist!  Just a well-chosen one or two.  Just sayin'.... 

[Opti]

edit: lastly, i am wealthy beyond the dreams of most people. i have nothing to envy, and nothing to steal.

It might do you good to share a little of that. Not with everyone, of course. You're not...(shudder) socialist! Just a well-chosen one or two. Just sayin'....

   I could be a well chosen one. Is there a contest?









 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The world has gone mad. In any kind of a sane world Barrack Obama would be back in Chicago rabble-rousing, not sitting in the White House. And he sure as shit wouldn't have been re-elected.  The narrative since the last GOP debate on CNN was that Carly won, she's the new golden child, she took out Trump. Trump is finally fading, other candidates are gaining, the Summer of Trump will not give way to the Fall of Trump. And yet- here we are.  Trump has a massive lead- double digits in most of the state by state polls.  Nationally, it looks like Carson is within striking distance- but there's not a single state contest where Trump isn't leading, and leading comfortably outside the margin of error.  I'd like to think it'll change when the voting starts, but I'd also like to think there's no reason for Cruz to be in 6th.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 3, 2015 10:50:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 2, 2015 22:06:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't go on any of DJ's assigned wild goose chases.  He is not a classical liberal- meaning conservative (another absolutely silly debate which I will not have)- because he is not a lover of liberty.  He does not believe in the only legitimate role of government- which is force- to defend the inalienable natural rights of the individual.  He believes in the use of government force to "make things fair" for the "underdog" which right there tells you that he's a liberal- a statist. He believes in the arbitrary use of force to fix things that are subjectively "unfair".  The redistribution of wealth, and the right to use force to appropriate the product of someone's labor for another who has not earned it, and to whom it has not be voluntarily given. Liberal. Socialist. Communist. Statist. It's all the same Utopian tripe that doesn't work because it's very foundations are immoral: envy and theft.

i am absolutely NOT a conservative in the contemporary formulation, in that i don't want to deny rights to gays or start wars in distant lands over POTENTIAL threats.  classical liberals don't want those things, either.

a person should be able to do with their person or property whatever they wish, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.  if you CONSERVATIVES would rely on that principle, i would proudly call myself conservative.

and i never said "make things fair".  EVER.  go look.  what i said was to MAKE ACCESS TO JUSTICE fair.  nothing more or less.  it is actually up to the oppressed to FIND that avenue, though i lament the job that government has done advertising it.

i am actually not in favor of "the distribution" of wealth by means of socialism, as Paul says above.

liberals and socialists are enemies.  socialists know it.  liberals know it.  only people who are neither don't know it.

edit: lastly, i am wealthy beyond the dreams of most people.  i have nothing to envy, and nothing to steal.

You're confused about what "rights" are.  Gays DO have the right to have marriages recognized so long as government is in the marriage business.  However, classical liberals- e.g. conservatives- understand that government has no place in the marriage business; we understand that expanding the role of government in the marriage business mainly for personal financial gain in the form of government benefits, favorable tax treatment, and social security-- is anything but classically liberal.  We understand that "rights" do not extend to a government takeover of a person's business to micromanage it and direct their behavior.  The civil "rights" act and much of the legislation is an over-reach. The only thing we had to do is change our minds.  We didn't even need to amend the Constitution, we need only have APPLIED it.  There's no right to have your picture taken, no right to a cake, no right to service at a lunch counter-- HOWEVER, an accurate understanding of what was happening in the civil rights era was not that law were being passed giving people rights to a seat at the lunch counter, but that state laws that coerced private business owners into discriminating when they did not want to-- those Jim Crow laws which interfered between private parties-- were what needed to go.  They went too far in deciding that there was an "absolute right" to demand a business serve someone.  We traded coercion for coercion, when all that needed to happen was get government out from between private parties.

You are in favor of taking tax dollars from people that have earned them, and giving them to people who have not. You are a fan of social security, medicare, and the PPACA, are you not?

Liberals and socialists are the same thing: cover identities for communists.

I did not say YOU were envious. I said you favored a system built on envy, and theft. You favor government violence as means of coercing behaviors you approve of, preventing behaviors you disapprove of, do you not?

A classical liberal- that is a CONSERVATIVE- again, understands that the role of government was laid out in the Declaration, and codified into the Constitution.  We understand we live under  a rogue government that is losing legitimacy day by day as it usurps power never even contemplated by our founders, let alone granted the government.  But you like it. You seem to believe that there's a glorious middle ground between liberty and tyranny.

[Tennesseer]

[billisonboard]

Maybe even a Mad, Mad World

[tallguy]

Interesting definitions you seem to have now, Paul.

Liberal = Every bad thing you can think of.

Conservative = Every good thing about real liberals.

On the bright side, I guess it is progress that you now apparently agree that most good things to which conservatives at least pay lip service are primarily liberal ideas.    

[Tennesseer]

Or we can say 'What the Hell' because It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2015 21:08:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

back to the topic----i can't get used to a president Trump.....

Me neither.  Fortunately, I don't think we'll have to.

edit: lastly, i am wealthy beyond the dreams of most people. i have nothing to envy, and nothing to steal.

It might do you good to share a little of that.  Not with everyone, of course.  You're not...(shudder) socialist!  Just a well-chosen one or two.  Just sayin'.... 

i am pretty generous, but i sure as hell am no socialist. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2015 21:58:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 3, 2015 10:50:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am absolutely NOT a conservative in the contemporary formulation, in that i don't want to deny rights to gays or start wars in distant lands over POTENTIAL threats.  classical liberals don't want those things, either.

a person should be able to do with their person or property whatever they wish, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.  if you CONSERVATIVES would rely on that principle, i would proudly call myself conservative.

and i never said "make things fair".  EVER.  go look.  what i said was to MAKE ACCESS TO JUSTICE fair.  nothing more or less.  it is actually up to the oppressed to FIND that avenue, though i lament the job that government has done advertising it.

i am actually not in favor of "the distribution" of wealth by means of socialism, as Paul says above.

liberals and socialists are enemies.  socialists know it.  liberals know it.  only people who are neither don't know it.

edit: lastly, i am wealthy beyond the dreams of most people.  i have nothing to envy, and nothing to steal.

You're confused about what "rights" are.  Gays DO have the right to have marriages recognized so long as government is in the marriage business. 

you got off to a bad start, so i might not even read the rest of your post.

government took away the right to marry.  getting the government OUT of that business restored that right.

so, it is precisely the OPPOSITE of how you stated it: gays have the right to marry so long as government stays OUT of the racket.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2015 21:58:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

However, classical liberals- e.g. conservatives- understand that government has no place in the marriage business;

this is so completely upside down and backwards it almost doesn't merit a reply.  conservatives wanted the government INTO THE BUSINESS to STOP gays from getting married.  you guys are the "traditionalists", and TRADITION is not liberal in any sense of the term.

you have a very rosy view of what conservatism is, but it is about as distant from "classical liberalism" in terms of this issue as one can get.

stop stealing our thunder, bro.  you have a lot of catching up to do to get to where we are.

[djAdvocate]

speaking of Trump, he is way behind Carson in the latest poll:

legalinsurrection.com/2015/10/new-polls-have-carson-surging-while-trump-falls/

so, now we have two VERY different polls.  last week, we had USAT that showed that Carson had FALLEN 3%, and was in a disappointing tie with Fiorina.  this week we have that Carson is UP 11%, and is THUMPING Trump.  one of those polls is obviously an "outlier".  we need another survey to determine which.  but for now, the lights are all on in the Carson campaign.  we will see how it plays out for him......

[djAdvocate]

finally, i noted with interested that you didn't challenge any of my other assertions about conservatives being, essentially, pro-interventionist and anti-libertarian (in terms of personal sovereignty, to use Virgil's language), which, of course, was very wise of you.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 4, 2015 12:23:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2015 21:58:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

However, classical liberals- e.g. conservatives- understand that government has no place in the marriage business;

this is so completely upside down and backwards it almost doesn't merit a reply.  conservatives wanted the government INTO THE BUSINESS to STOP gays from getting married.  you guys are the "traditionalists", and TRADITION is not liberal in any sense of the term.

you have a very rosy view of what conservatism is, but it is about as distant from "classical liberalism" in terms of this issue as one can get.

stop stealing our thunder, bro.  you have a lot of catching up to do to get to where we are.

No. Liberals- specifically Democrats- got government into the marriage business to stop interracial marriages.  I can tell you have zero knowledge of the history of the marriage license.  Trust me when I tell you- no self-respecting person, gay, straight, polygamist, or whatever would celebrate having achieved the awesome position of being allowed to ask the government permission to get married and to have their marriage officially recognized by the state.  

Marriage Licenses Are A Racist Crime Against Humanity
by Michael Suede • February 1, 2011

A pastor tells us why the State has no business issuing licenses for a religious establishment:

George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

Being granted permission to marry someone by a gang of criminal thieves is the lowest form of submission to State authority a plebe could ever engage in.

www.libertariannews.org/2011/02/01/marriage-licenses-are-a-racist-crime-against-humanity/

[djAdvocate]

Oct 4, 2015 22:01:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 4, 2015 12:23:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is so completely upside down and backwards it almost doesn't merit a reply.  conservatives wanted the government INTO THE BUSINESS to STOP gays from getting married.  you guys are the "traditionalists", and TRADITION is not liberal in any sense of the term.

you have a very rosy view of what conservatism is, but it is about as distant from "classical liberalism" in terms of this issue as one can get.

stop stealing our thunder, bro.  you have a lot of catching up to do to get to where we are.

No. Liberals- specifically Democrats- got government into the marriage business to stop interracial marriages.  I can tell you have zero knowledge of the history of the marriage license.  Trust me when I tell you- no self-respecting person, gay, straight, polygamist, or whatever would celebrate having achieved the awesome position of being allowed to ask the government permission to get married and to have their marriage officially recognized by the state.

don't you have some overpriced emergency shit to sell or something?

edit: you are calling Southern Democrats LIBERAL?  that is too precious.  seriously.
if you really believe that, then you have zero knowledge of politics AND history.

[djAdvocate]

two interesting observations about the TRUMP campaign- neither of which bode well for him:

www.inquisitr.com/2468800/2016-election-predictions-presidential/
fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/republicans-dont-like-donald-trump-as-much-as-they-used-to/

i stick by what i said earlier.  i think he peaked about a month ago, and i think someone is going to catch him before EOY.

57 days, and counting.......

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 5, 2015 20:19:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

two interesting observations about the TRUMP campaign- neither of which bode well for him:

www.inquisitr.com/2468800/2016-election-predictions-presidential/
fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/republicans-dont-like-donald-trump-as-much-as-they-used-to/

i stick by what i said earlier.  i think he peaked about a month ago, and i think someone is going to catch him before EOY.

57 days, and counting.......

We'll see.  I have been waiting for the wheels to come off this wagon since June.  I've heard every narrative there is from "he's not going to run" to "he isn't serious" to "he's gonna be a spoiler for Hillary and run third party so she can get elected with 43% of the vote like Bill", to "It's gonna be Carly now", to "Trump has peaked", to "He'll drop out if he slips in the polls".

ALL of these have been unadulterated manufactured propaganda based on wishful thinking.

We've had a few defections from the Cruz camp recently-- the reasoning is starting to become that unless you support Trump, Jeb is your nominee.  

It is not arguable that Trump is destroying the GOPe splitter strategy. They're desperately coordinating last minute rules changes to ensure Jeb wins.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 6, 2015 7:40:01 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 5, 2015 20:19:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

two interesting observations about the TRUMP campaign- neither of which bode well for him:

www.inquisitr.com/2468800/2016-election-predictions-presidential/
fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/republicans-dont-like-donald-trump-as-much-as-they-used-to/

i stick by what i said earlier.  i think he peaked about a month ago, and i think someone is going to catch him before EOY.

57 days, and counting.......

We'll see.  I have been waiting for the wheels to come off this wagon since June.  I've heard every narrative there is from "he's not going to run" to "he isn't serious" to "he's gonna be a spoiler for Hillary and run third party so she can get elected with 43% of the vote like Bill", to "It's gonna be Carly now", to "Trump has peaked", to "He'll drop out if he slips in the polls".

ALL of these have been unadulterated manufactured propaganda based on wishful thinking.

We've had a few defections from the Cruz camp recently-- the reasoning is starting to become that unless you support Trump, Jeb is your nominee.  

It is not arguable that Trump is destroying the GOPe splitter strategy. They're desperately coordinating last minute rules changes to ensure Jeb wins.

Walker was in 1st or second place for 5 months.  i give Trump the same.

edit: i don't care what partisans say about the polls.  "they" are often wrong.  when i speak, i speak for myself.  my record has been pretty good.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 6, 2015 10:19:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 6, 2015 7:40:01 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We'll see.  I have been waiting for the wheels to come off this wagon since June.  I've heard every narrative there is from "he's not going to run" to "he isn't serious" to "he's gonna be a spoiler for Hillary and run third party so she can get elected with 43% of the vote like Bill", to "It's gonna be Carly now", to "Trump has peaked", to "He'll drop out if he slips in the polls".

ALL of these have been unadulterated manufactured propaganda based on wishful thinking.

We've had a few defections from the Cruz camp recently-- the reasoning is starting to become that unless you support Trump, Jeb is your nominee.  

It is not arguable that Trump is destroying the GOPe splitter strategy. They're desperately coordinating last minute rules changes to ensure Jeb wins.

Walker was in 1st or second place for 5 months.  i give Trump the same.

edit: i don't care what partisans say about the polls.  "they" are often wrong.  when i speak, i speak for myself.  my record has been pretty good.

I want you to be right about Trump, and especially about Jeb.  But then, I want to live in a country where people like Barrack Obama have zero chance of holding office as dog catcher, let alone POTUS.  You know what they say about wanting in one hand, and shitting in the other...

[djAdvocate]

Oct 6, 2015 12:44:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 6, 2015 10:19:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Walker was in 1st or second place for 5 months.  i give Trump the same.

edit: i don't care what partisans say about the polls.  "they" are often wrong.  when i speak, i speak for myself.  my record has been pretty good.

I want you to be right about Trump, and especially about Jeb. 

then just relax, sit back, and watch. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Clinton vs. Bush 2016. Ms. Clinton wins.

I said it in 2013, 2014, early 2015, now again in late 2015. I'll still be saying it after Ms. Clinton locks up the Democratic nomination. After Jeb! locks up the GOP nomination. Through the summer of 2016. On the eve of the vote, when Paul, Shooby et al., maddened by the fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency, are grasping at flecks of straw and declaring certain victory for Mr. Bush. I'll still be saying it the day after the vote when DJ, Tall, et al. are doing their "I told you so" peacock strut up and down the forums as though predicting Ms. Clinton's inevitable victory was some grand feat of prognostication.

The fact that you gentlemen believe any of this election drama matters. The fact that you believe the election itself matters. So full of hope and change. So dazzled and intrigued. Who will win? Who will get the nomination? What do the polls say? I could just pinch those cute little cheeks.

But let's make this official.

Virgil's Top 5 US Federal Election 2016 Predictions

1. Ms. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.
   
   
2. Mr. Bush wins the GOP nomination.
   
   
3. Paul, despite claiming to despise Mr. Bush up to and including the point he's nominated, quickly warms up to him (mainly due to a fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency) and quickly becomes his staunchest advocate in political debates on the board.
   
   
4. DJ and mmhmm, both claiming to be Independents, take up Ms. Clinton's mantle post-nomination. DJ more aggressively than mmhmm. mmhmm's advocacy is limited to shooting down, debunking, or otherwise criticizing the legitimacy of i) positive claims made about Mr. Bush, and ii) negative claims made about Ms. Clinton. DJ is more proactive. He openly attacks Mr. Bush and initiates arguments. Several thousand comparisons are drawn between Jeb Bush and George W. Bush between the nomination and the vote. Both mmhmm and DJ deny any favouritism or advocacy for Ms. Clinton. In particular, mmhmm claims that she "says just as many positive (negative) things about Bush (Clinton) as she does about Clinton (Bush)" despite this claim being provably untrue. DJ's defense follows the tried-and-true "What I really meant to say was..." format. For example, "When I said that Clinton is better for America, by 'better', I meant better in the sense of having a better proposal for amending traffic laws. I didn't mean 'better for everything', Virgil, and frankly it's ridiculous for you to have assumed that."
   
   
5. The GOP retains control of the HoR.
   

[djAdvocate]

Oct 6, 2015 13:35:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Clinton vs. Bush 2016. Ms. Clinton wins.

I said it in 2013, 2014, early 2015, now again in late 2015. I'll still be saying it after Ms. Clinton locks up the Democratic nomination. After Jeb! locks up the GOP nomination. Through the summer of 2016. On the eve of the vote, when Paul, Shooby et al., maddened by the fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency, are grasping at flecks of straw and declaring certain victory for Mr. Bush. I'll still be saying it the day after the vote when DJ, Tall, et al. are doing their "I told you so" peacock strut up and down the forums as though predicting Ms. Clinton's inevitable victory was some grand feat of prognostication.

The fact that you gentlemen believe any of this election drama matters. The fact that you believe the election itself matters. So full of hope and change. So dazzled and intrigued. Who will win? Who will get the nomination? What do the polls say? I could just pinch those cute little cheeks.

But let's make this official.

Virgil's Top 5 US Federal Election 2016 Predictions

1. Ms. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.
   
   
2. Mr. Bush wins the GOP nomination.
   
   
3. Paul, despite claiming to despise Mr. Bush up to and including the point he's nominated, quickly warms up to him (mainly due to a fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency) and quickly becomes his staunchest advocate in political debates on the board.
   
   
4. DJ and mmhmm, both claiming to be Independents, take up Ms. Clinton's mantle post-nomination. DJ more aggressively than mmhmm. mmhmm's advocacy is limited to shooting down, debunking, or otherwise criticizing the legitimacy of i) positive claims made about Mr. Bush, and ii) negative claims made about Ms. Clinton. DJ is more proactive. He openly attacks Mr. Bush and initiates arguments. Several thousand comparisons are drawn between Jeb Bush and George W. Bush between the nomination and the vote. Both mmhmm and DJ deny any favouritism or advocacy for Ms. Clinton. In particular, mmhmm claims that she "says just as many positive (negative) things about Bush (Clinton) as she does about Clinton (Bush)" despite this claim being provably untrue. DJ's defense follows the tried-and-true "What I really meant to say was..." format. For example, "When I said that Clinton is better for America, by 'better', I meant better in the sense of having a better proposal for amending traffic laws. I didn't mean 'better for everything', Virgil, and frankly it's ridiculous for you to have assumed that."
   
   
5. The GOP retains control of the HoR.
   

dude.  Bush is....well, a BUSH.  you really expect me to get behind him?

OF COURSE i will criticize BUSH more than Clinton.  it is practically in my DNA.

none of your guesses are all that tough or controversial.

care to guess about the Senate?

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2015 13:41:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 6, 2015 13:35:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Clinton vs. Bush 2016. Ms. Clinton wins.

I said it in 2013, 2014, early 2015, now again in late 2015. I'll still be saying it after Ms. Clinton locks up the Democratic nomination. After Jeb! locks up the GOP nomination. Through the summer of 2016. On the eve of the vote, when Paul, Shooby et al., maddened by the fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency, are grasping at flecks of straw and declaring certain victory for Mr. Bush. I'll still be saying it the day after the vote when DJ, Tall, et al. are doing their "I told you so" peacock strut up and down the forums as though predicting Ms. Clinton's inevitable victory was some grand feat of prognostication.

The fact that you gentlemen believe any of this election drama matters. The fact that you believe the election itself matters. So full of hope and change. So dazzled and intrigued. Who will win? Who will get the nomination? What do the polls say? I could just pinch those cute little cheeks.

But let's make this official.

Virgil's Top 5 US Federal Election 2016 Predictions

1. Ms. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.
   
   
2. Mr. Bush wins the GOP nomination.
   
   
3. Paul, despite claiming to despise Mr. Bush up to and including the point he's nominated, quickly warms up to him (mainly due to a fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency) and quickly becomes his staunchest advocate in political debates on the board.
   
   
4. DJ and mmhmm, both claiming to be Independents, take up Ms. Clinton's mantle post-nomination. DJ more aggressively than mmhmm. mmhmm's advocacy is limited to shooting down, debunking, or otherwise criticizing the legitimacy of i) positive claims made about Mr. Bush, and ii) negative claims made about Ms. Clinton. DJ is more proactive. He openly attacks Mr. Bush and initiates arguments. Several thousand comparisons are drawn between Jeb Bush and George W. Bush between the nomination and the vote. Both mmhmm and DJ deny any favouritism or advocacy for Ms. Clinton. In particular, mmhmm claims that she "says just as many positive (negative) things about Bush (Clinton) as she does about Clinton (Bush)" despite this claim being provably untrue. DJ's defense follows the tried-and-true "What I really meant to say was..." format. For example, "When I said that Clinton is better for America, by 'better', I meant better in the sense of having a better proposal for amending traffic laws. I didn't mean 'better for everything', Virgil, and frankly it's ridiculous for you to have assumed that."
   
   
5. The GOP retains control of the HoR.
   

dude.  Bush is....well, a BUSH.  you really expect me to get behind him?

OF COURSE i will criticize BUSH more than Clinton.  it is practically in my DNA.

none of your guesses are all that tough or controversial.

care to guess about the Senate?

The Senate doesn't matter, hence I can't predict.

With Ms. Clinton in the White House and the GOP controlling the HoR, government is deadlocked save for Ms. Clinton's liberal use of the ever-expanding presidential powers toolkit, which is the only way anything gets done.

The Senate can go either way. It will be split virtually down the middle either way. If it goes to the Republicans, Ms. Clinton will need to invest a bit to get some GOP senators to cross the floor during key votes, but she won't break a sweat.

The other tough question is whether Mr. Trump will run as an Independent. It won't matter either way, but it's an interesting question. Half of me thinks he's arrogant enough to damn the torpedoes and charge right in. Half of me thinks he's patient enough to wait for the US to circle ever closer to the drain during Ms. Clinton's first term and run on an "I told you so" platform in 2020. If I was a betting man, I'd say patience wins out. But I wouldn't give you better than 1:1 odds.

[weltschmerz]

Oct 6, 2015 12:44:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 6, 2015 10:19:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Walker was in 1st or second place for 5 months.  i give Trump the same.

edit: i don't care what partisans say about the polls.  "they" are often wrong.  when i speak, i speak for myself.  my record has been pretty good.

I want you to be right about Trump, and especially about Jeb.  But then, I want to live in a country where people like Barrack Obama have zero chance of holding office as dog catcher, let alone POTUS.  You know what they say about wanting in one hand, and shitting in the other...

So, you want to live in a dictatorship, like North Korea?

Obama was elected BY THE PEOPLE.

[mmhmm]

LOL! No way would I vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. I don't care much about either. If my choice is between the two of them, I'll go for someone else. I'm not particularly enamored of either party. Don't like politicians in general. Of course, I've said that many times before but some just have to find a neat little hole to try to fit others into, even if those others don't fit.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 6, 2015 13:54:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 6, 2015 13:41:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

dude.  Bush is....well, a BUSH.  you really expect me to get behind him?

OF COURSE i will criticize BUSH more than Clinton.  it is practically in my DNA.

none of your guesses are all that tough or controversial.

care to guess about the Senate?

The Senate doesn't matter, hence I can't predict.

With Ms. Clinton in the White House and the GOP controlling the HoR, government is deadlocked save for Ms. Clinton's liberal use of the ever-expanding presidential powers toolkit, which is the only way anything gets done.

The Senate can go either way. It will be split virtually down the middle either way. If it goes to the Republicans, Ms. Clinton will need to invest a bit to get some GOP senators to cross the floor during key votes, but she won't break a sweat.

The other tough question is whether Mr. Trump will run as an Independent. It won't matter either way, but it's an interesting question. Half of me thinks he's arrogant enough to damn the torpedoes and charge right in. Half of me thinks he's patient enough to wait for the US to circle ever closer to the drain during Ms. Clinton's first term and run on an "I told you so" platform in 2020. If I was a betting man, I'd say patience wins out. But I wouldn't give you better than 1:1 odds.

Trump probably won't run, but if he does, the GOP loses for sure, imo.  if he doesn't, the demographics favor Democrats heavily, so they probably lose either way.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 6, 2015 14:03:29 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL! No way would I vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. I don't care much about either. If my choice is between the two of them, I'll go for someone else. I'm not particularly enamored of either party. Don't like politicians in general. Of course, I've said that many times before but some just have to find a neat little hole to try to fit others into, even if those others don't fit.

i haven't voted major party for president since 1996, and i won't be doing so this time, unless by some miracle, a non-interventionist is running.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 6, 2015 14:01:13 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oct 6, 2015 12:44:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I want you to be right about Trump, and especially about Jeb.  But then, I want to live in a country where people like Barrack Obama have zero chance of holding office as dog catcher, let alone POTUS.  You know what they say about wanting in one hand, and shitting in the other...

So, you want to live in a dictatorship, like North Korea?

Obama was elected BY THE PEOPLE.

No. To clarify, I would like to live in a thriving republic where people are of better moral fiber so that they would not vote for someone like Obama.

So was Hitler.

[mmhmm]

Oct 6, 2015 14:11:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 6, 2015 14:03:29 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL! No way would I vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. I don't care much about either. If my choice is between the two of them, I'll go for someone else. I'm not particularly enamored of either party. Don't like politicians in general. Of course, I've said that many times before but some just have to find a neat little hole to try to fit others into, even if those others don't fit.

i haven't voted major party for president since 1996, and i won't be doing so this time, unless by some miracle, a non-interventionist is running.

I'm about the same, dj. I don't care much about Democrats and I don't care much about Republicans. It's mox-nix to me. A crook is a crook. I try to choose the least offensive in a sea of offensiveness most elections.