djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2015 12:29:39 GMT -5
I'm going to take a leap and get back into the prediction business. The reason is that I see evidence for the dynamic that fueled my last (wrong) prediction because my assumptions just didn't pan out-- namely, a whole bunch of people (8 million give or take) just didn't show up for Mitt Romney. My initial guess: Trump supporters were soft, they'd never follow through-- they're giving those answers to pollsters because they know it's driving the establishment and media nuts. It would be fun to watch for a little while because Trump, backed up by the pollsters, was making all the right people squirm. My new guess: The Obama regime's orchestrated invasion over the southern border, terror on American soil, and the constant string of insults and condescension from the establishment has had a big chunk of America simmering for years now. Trump has tapped into their rage, and I now believe Trump has much MORE support than is showing in the polls. I think there are many, many- not very outspoken, not typically very political, but nonetheless registered to vote, and champing at the bit Trump supporters. My wife is one. She won't talk politics with anyone. She goes and pulls the "R" pretty much no matter what-- even when I stayed home. She isn't particularly vocal about it, she doesn't let her political passions show, but she is waiting to vote for Trump. She wants the border secure, illegal invaders deported, and islamists DEAD; and she wants it all yesterday, fuck the tax code and everything else. I don't think she's alone. I think there's a massive wave of voters- the nearly 8 million that have been staying home in larger and larger numbers since Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain, and Romney. I could always be wrong, but I thnk they're back. And they're back for Trump. Cruz would win this thing hands-down in a normal cycle, but Trump has woken up the giant and they're not going back to sleep. This thing is all over. Am I wrong? If these voters don't materialize in the primaries I am. If I'm right- Trump will be the next President of the United States. There are simply too many disaffected voters for the numbers to work any other way. If I'm correct, and Trump has finally woken up even 5% of the people who have been staying home, or dropped off the voter rolls-- there's no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I think you are two steps ahead of yourself. Primaries need to be won. The nomination secured. And then there will be an election for POTUS. Will that election be a two person contest? If not, how will a three or even four serious candidate race play out? If it is Trump and a Democrat has the only two viable choices, I can see where those 8 million stay at home types would show up, but Trump isn't guaranteed them plus all those "RINO" votes. It certainly is shaping up to be an interesting election. moreover, i think that there are probably at least 8M voters that would stay home if Bush were the nominee, but will vote Democrat if Trump gets the nomination. you want to see a passionate election? nominate Trump. half the nation finds him utterly terrifying, the other half, wonderful.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2015 12:31:32 GMT -5
I think you overestimate how ticked off your "big chunk of America" is. ...or more appropriately, 'will be'. A lot of what's fueling this rage is Pres. Obama's weekly kicking dirt in the face of Republicans, trying to secure some kind of a legacy. Mr. Trump isn't always going to have that wellspring of reactionism behind him. If ISIS simmers down over the holidays, the US economy doesn't crater, and Pres. Obama can keep himself from inviting in Syrians, shutting down coal plants, offering amnesty to illegals, proposing free widgets for everybody, etc. every second week for the next three months, a "big chunk of America" is going to turn back to the moderates again. Mr. Trump is a liability. again, i think you are underestimating the size and passion of the % of the US that sees Obama as having ENDURED 7 years of sand kicking, Virgil. but whatever. we have 11 months to find out.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,468
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 8, 2015 12:59:43 GMT -5
I think you are two steps ahead of yourself. Primaries need to be won. The nomination secured. And then there will be an election for POTUS. Will that election be a two person contest? If not, how will a three or even four serious candidate race play out? If it is Trump and a Democrat has the only two viable choices, I can see where those 8 million stay at home types would show up, but Trump isn't guaranteed them plus all those "RINO" votes. It certainly is shaping up to be an interesting election. moreover, i think that there are probably at least 8M voters that would stay home if Bush were the nominee, but will vote Democrat if Trump gets the nomination. you want to see a passionate election? nominate Trump. half the nation finds him utterly terrifying, the other half, wonderful. It is very disconcerting that half the population of American voters might find Trump wonderful. The man is dangerous to America and our interests and citizens abroad.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2015 13:04:15 GMT -5
moreover, i think that there are probably at least 8M voters that would stay home if Bush were the nominee, but will vote Democrat if Trump gets the nomination. you want to see a passionate election? nominate Trump. half the nation finds him utterly terrifying, the other half, wonderful. It is very disconcerting that half the population of American voters might find Trump wonderful. The man is dangerous to America and our interests and citizens abroad. i am probably exaggerating on both counts. half of America doesn't even vote.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,468
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 8, 2015 13:07:45 GMT -5
It is very disconcerting that half the population of American voters might find Trump wonderful. The man is dangerous to America and our interests and citizens abroad. i am probably exaggerating on both counts. half of America doesn't even vote. Valid point. If Trump is the nominee though, I believe more than 50% would vote. The man deserves no seat at the table of American politics and decision making.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2015 13:14:34 GMT -5
i am probably exaggerating on both counts. half of America doesn't even vote. Valid point. If Trump is the nominee though, I believe more than 50% would vote. The man deserves no seat at the table of American politics and decision making. no person who alienates and demonizes half of the electorate should even be considered. but here we are.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,468
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 8, 2015 13:21:31 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2015 13:31:49 GMT -5
the GOP doesn't care about the rest of the world, imo. but those outside of the party do.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 8, 2015 15:27:49 GMT -5
His proposed moratorium on all Muslim immigrants seems like precisely what ISIS would want. It makes it very clear that America is at war with Islam. I happen to believe America and Islam are at war regardless of whether it's official, but as we just finished discussing, the majority of people who call themselves Muslims are neither Muslims nor at war with the west. They believe they are Muslims, however, and I doubt they'll take too well to being singled out as enemies and undesirables. Will this be what sinks Mr. Trump? I doubt it. Jeb! is going to win the Republican nomination either way, hence it doesn't much matter. i happen to think that it is a terrible idea to be at war with Islam. what do you think? Being at war with Islam--true Islam--isn't an idea. It's already a reality. Islam is a system of life, law, and governance fundamentally incompatible (or we might say "at war with") western democracy. Europe is presently being overrun, eroding from within, losing its own war. The question is whether it's a good idea for America to openly acknowledge its own war with Islam, and to behave accordingly. There is no "good" answer to this question. You know my thoughts (shared by many others on the board) about the displaced Syrian and North African immigrants. I don't want them coming to Canada. They continue to be a source of the same radicalism, the same strife, the same attrition as is observed in Europe. But categorically banning Muslims from immigrating? I don't like the idea. Not necessarily because it's a bad idea, since it isn't at this cosmic moment in time, but because it's a bad precedent. It's antithetical to the west's support for freedom of religion. It also gives western governments cart blanche to wage war on religious fundamentalism generally. As you know, I fully expect there will come a time when Christian fundamentalism will be hated just as much as Islamic fundamentalism is hated today. Societies won't recognize any distinction between the two. This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation if ever there was one. Do we pretend a war isn't being waged, carry on business as usual, and let our societies be assaulted, overrun and buried, or do we acknowledge the war and in so doing, alienate billions of foreigners, compromise our ideals on religious freedom, and set a dangerous precedent? There is no right answer. We lose either way. Who gives a flying snow leopard what foreign governments and foreign ideologues think? The rest of the world is so deep in dung, they're suffocating in it. They're the last people on Earth qualified to give opinions. That's not to say I approve of Mr. Trump's idea, because I don't. But good idea or not, he's wise for not giving a snow leopard's fuzzy white fanny what British and French leaders think. If he gives their opinions any weight at all, it should be in favour of doing exactly the opposite of what they suggest.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2015 15:46:10 GMT -5
i happen to think that it is a terrible idea to be at war with Islam. what do you think? Being at war with Islam--true Islam--isn't an idea. It's already a reality. Islam is a system of life, law, and governance fundamentally incompatible (or we might say "at war with") western democracy. Europe is presently being overrun, eroding from within, losing its own war. The question is whether it's a good idea for America to openly acknowledge its own war with Islam, and to behave accordingly. There is no "good" answer to this question. You know my thoughts (shared by many others on the board) about the displaced Syrian and North African immigrants. I don't want them coming to Canada. They continue to be a source of the same radicalism, the same strife, the same attrition as is observed in Europe. But categorically banning Muslims from immigrating? I don't like the idea. Not necessarily because it's a bad idea, since it isn't at this cosmic moment in time, but because it's a bad precedent. It's antithetical to the west's support for freedom of religion. It also gives western governments cart blanche to wage war on religious fundamentalism generally. As you know, I fully expect there will come a time when Christian fundamentalism will be hated just as much as Islamic fundamentalism is hated today. Societies won't recognize any distinction between the two. This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation if ever there was one. Do we pretend a war isn't being waged, carry on business as usual, and let our societies be assaulted, overrun and buried, or do we acknowledge the war and in so doing, alienate billions of foreigners, compromise our ideals on religious freedom, and set a dangerous precedent? There is no right answer. We lose either way. Who gives a flying snow leopard what foreign governments and foreign ideologues think? The rest of the world is so deep in dung, they're suffocating in it. They're the last people on Earth qualified to give opinions. That's not to say I approve of Mr. Trump's idea, because I don't. But good idea or not, he's wise for not giving a snow leopard's fuzzy white fanny what British and French leaders think. If he gives their opinions any weight at all, it should be in favour of doing exactly the opposite of what they suggest. nah. i think it is "damned if you do". if you don't, there is a lot that can still be done. edit: i fervently disagree about the war, part, however, unless you are speaking metaphorically.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 8, 2015 16:03:41 GMT -5
Being at war with Islam--true Islam--isn't an idea. It's already a reality. Islam is a system of life, law, and governance fundamentally incompatible (or we might say "at war with") western democracy. Europe is presently being overrun, eroding from within, losing its own war. The question is whether it's a good idea for America to openly acknowledge its own war with Islam, and to behave accordingly. There is no "good" answer to this question. You know my thoughts (shared by many others on the board) about the displaced Syrian and North African immigrants. I don't want them coming to Canada. They continue to be a source of the same radicalism, the same strife, the same attrition as is observed in Europe. But categorically banning Muslims from immigrating? I don't like the idea. Not necessarily because it's a bad idea, since it isn't at this cosmic moment in time, but because it's a bad precedent. It's antithetical to the west's support for freedom of religion. It also gives western governments cart blanche to wage war on religious fundamentalism generally. As you know, I fully expect there will come a time when Christian fundamentalism will be hated just as much as Islamic fundamentalism is hated today. Societies won't recognize any distinction between the two. This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation if ever there was one. Do we pretend a war isn't being waged, carry on business as usual, and let our societies be assaulted, overrun and buried, or do we acknowledge the war and in so doing, alienate billions of foreigners, compromise our ideals on religious freedom, and set a dangerous precedent? There is no right answer. We lose either way. Who gives a flying snow leopard what foreign governments and foreign ideologues think? The rest of the world is so deep in dung, they're suffocating in it. They're the last people on Earth qualified to give opinions. That's not to say I approve of Mr. Trump's idea, because I don't. But good idea or not, he's wise for not giving a snow leopard's fuzzy white fanny what British and French leaders think. If he gives their opinions any weight at all, it should be in favour of doing exactly the opposite of what they suggest. nah. i think it is "damned if you do". if you don't, there is a lot that can still be done. edit: i fervently disagree about the war, part, however, unless you are speaking metaphorically. I'm not speaking metaphorically. And no, there's not a lot that can still be done, presuming it's to have meaningful and lasting effect. You've said in the past that you prefer to embrace hope rather than concede inevitable failure, that you find it harder to function and enjoy life otherwise, hence I see no reason why you shouldn't adopt a "this is fixable" attitude. Of course, it might drive you nuts if by some miracle Mr. Trump is elected. But that might at least prove fun to watch.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2015 16:19:21 GMT -5
nah. i think it is "damned if you do". if you don't, there is a lot that can still be done. edit: i fervently disagree about the war, part, however, unless you are speaking metaphorically. I'm not speaking metaphorically. And no, there's not a lot that can still be done, presuming it's to have meaningful and lasting effect. (personal remarks deleted) okey doke. nothing further to discuss then, i guess.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 8, 2015 20:44:19 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 8, 2015 20:51:21 GMT -5
unlikely- but keep this in mind- Rubio would be much tougher for Hillary to beat, and he is in a much better position to do so than Jeb!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 8, 2015 21:24:50 GMT -5
unlikely- but keep this in mind- Rubio would be much tougher for Hillary to beat, and he is in a much better position to do so than Jeb! I don't know. Rubio is enough of a line toer that TPTB might permit him the honour of being the one defeated by Hillary, but Jeb! is still their safest bet.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Dec 9, 2015 1:28:48 GMT -5
Since he doesn't have to rely on others for funding he can say what a lot of people are thinking. Of course he is extreme but I sure like hearing a lot of that stuff being said. That is why he is up so high in rankings, he is not politically correct and its a fresh breath of air.
Jeb may be speaking Spanish to appeal to Hispanics but he is making a big mistake, they are becoming a majority but so many are not citizens they can't take over just yet, give them about 10 more years. People now are very upset with to many here now. Wait till one of them runs for president and gets in. We all better be learning spanish.
Can he get the presidency, I don't know, but no one thought a black young man could either. I really think Romney, he who would not show his tax returns to us plebeians, thought he had it made in the shade, fooled him. People are so disgusted with the congress yet they think a president can fix it and he can't, so who knows?
I think Obama has done a great job considering all the horrible bigotry and hatred of his race he has faced. And he has done it and maintained his dignity. An absolutely admirable quality. Imagine what he could have accomplished with cooperation. And despite what many say, they do want congress to cooperate and move the country forward not continually dissolve into the do nothing bunch that is there. They are wasting our time and letting the country slide down further and further into chaos. People don't seem to understand, they keep voting in the same ridiculous people or worse on the repub side, yet think there will be different results. You need middle of the road people, people willing to compromise to get anything through, so this is what we have and will continue to have till the citizens finally realize we are voting those idiots into congress.
I would like to see term limits, and I would like to see the majority and minority leaders out. It's time for new blood. Finally...so well said..a breath of fresh air to me..
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 9, 2015 3:48:53 GMT -5
I'm going to take a leap and get back into the prediction business. The reason is that I see evidence for the dynamic that fueled my last (wrong) prediction because my assumptions just didn't pan out-- namely, a whole bunch of people (8 million give or take) just didn't show up for Mitt Romney. My initial guess: Trump supporters were soft, they'd never follow through-- they're giving those answers to pollsters because they know it's driving the establishment and media nuts. It would be fun to watch for a little while because Trump, backed up by the pollsters, was making all the right people squirm. My new guess: The Obama regime's orchestrated invasion over the southern border, terror on American soil, and the constant string of insults and condescension from the establishment has had a big chunk of America simmering for years now. Trump has tapped into their rage, and I now believe Trump has much MORE support than is showing in the polls. I think there are many, many- not very outspoken, not typically very political, but nonetheless registered to vote, and champing at the bit Trump supporters. My wife is one. She won't talk politics with anyone. She goes and pulls the "R" pretty much no matter what-- even when I stayed home. She isn't particularly vocal about it, she doesn't let her political passions show, but she is waiting to vote for Trump. She wants the border secure, illegal invaders deported, and islamists DEAD; and she wants it all yesterday, fuck the tax code and everything else. I don't think she's alone. I think there's a massive wave of voters- the nearly 8 million that have been staying home in larger and larger numbers since Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain, and Romney. I could always be wrong, but I thnk they're back. And they're back for Trump. Cruz would win this thing hands-down in a normal cycle, but Trump has woken up the giant and they're not going back to sleep. This thing is all over. Am I wrong? If these voters don't materialize in the primaries I am. If I'm right- Trump will be the next President of the United States. There are simply too many disaffected voters for the numbers to work any other way. If I'm correct, and Trump has finally woken up even 5% of the people who have been staying home, or dropped off the voter rolls-- there's no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. They said the same thing about the Tea Party. Not only is it asleep, but in a coma.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,536
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 9, 2015 8:24:16 GMT -5
I agree there is some percentage of republican voters who have been staying at home in the last elections.
However, what Trump is also waking up are those moderate Republican and independent voters like myself who are appalled at the thought of such a loud mouthed racist being president. I'm certain there are a lot of people (like me) who aren't excited about Hillary, but, if faced with the possibility of having Trump as the POTUS, would get off our asses and drive to the polls just to vote against him.
My prediction - if Hillary stays low, avoids any scandals and controversies and picks a solid VP, and if she's running against Trump, she may be the first person elected president not because of who she is and what she's proposing, but simply because she isn't Trump.
Trump is gambling that there are enough angry white people to elect him. I think the republicans will manage to keep him from the nomination, which will cause Trump to run as an independent, splitting the Republican vote and guaranteeing Clinton will walk away the winner.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Dec 9, 2015 9:58:59 GMT -5
I agree there is some percentage of republican voters who have been staying at home in the last elections. However, what Trump is also waking up are those moderate Republican and independent voters like myself who are appalled at the thought of such a loud mouthed racist being president. I'm certain there are a lot of people (like me) who aren't excited about Hillary, but, if faced with the possibility of having Trump as the POTUS, would get off our asses and drive to the polls just to vote against him. My prediction - if Hillary stays low, avoids any scandals and controversies and picks a solid VP, and if she's running against Trump, she may be the first person elected president not because of who she is and what she's proposing, but simply because she isn't Trump. Trump is gambling that there are enough angry white people to elect him. I think the republicans will manage to keep him from the nomination, which will cause Trump to run as an independent, splitting the Republican vote and guaranteeing Clinton will walk away the winner. Either way...run as a independent...good or PUB's join Dems in voting for whoever Dems put up...I just hope so...I read these comments at the end of the articles and what is being said..granted , in the scheme of things..I believe by a vocal but small fringe of dissatisfied folks...but it is scary as hell. I am not going to call them names, though I do have that thought at times but their ideas ..their anger..their viciousness..their.... in some ways so scary as I said..also so disappointed in my fellow citizens...Hope your idea comes true...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2015 11:53:23 GMT -5
unlikely- but keep this in mind- Rubio would be much tougher for Hillary to beat, and he is in a much better position to do so than Jeb! I don't know. Rubio is enough of a line toer that TPTB might permit him the honour of being the one defeated by Hillary, but Jeb! is still their safest bet. that's fine. i do know.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2015 11:56:53 GMT -5
I agree there is some percentage of republican voters who have been staying at home in the last elections. However, what Trump is also waking up are those moderate Republican and independent voters like myself who are appalled at the thought of such a loud mouthed racist being president. I'm certain there are a lot of people (like me) who aren't excited about Hillary, but, if faced with the possibility of having Trump as the POTUS, would get off our asses and drive to the polls just to vote against him. My prediction - if Hillary stays low, avoids any scandals and controversies and picks a solid VP, and if she's running against Trump, she may be the first person elected president not because of who she is and what she's proposing, but simply because she isn't Trump. Trump is gambling that there are enough angry white people to elect him. I think the republicans will manage to keep him from the nomination, which will cause Trump to run as an independent, splitting the Republican vote and guaranteeing Clinton will walk away the winner. he already backpedaled on his debate pledge, i see no reason to think that he would not do so on his pledge to not run independently.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2015 12:02:59 GMT -5
No, because Bush is a politician and careful with his words. Barring photos of him having sex with farm animals surfacing unexpectedly, an implosion would be unlikely. Trump, on the other hand, makes outrageous statements on purpose, all the time, in order to garner publicity and to appeal to his radical base. It's not hard to imagine him making some statement that is just so outrageous it produces more negative press than positive. In fact he might have finally done it with his anti-Muslim statements about barring Muslims from entering the country, including Muslim citizens who are attempting to return home. Substitute 'Jew' for 'Muslim' in his statement and suddenly those of us who studied history are hearing frightening echoes of the Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda in the 20's. Worse, Trump is doing just what Isis wants us to do - turn this into a religious war. Every other Republican candidate has come out against Trumps' statements. Trumps' hard core voters are sticking with him, but there are more 'I'd vote democratic rather than vote for him' people now, guaranteeing that, even if Trump won the nomination, he could not win the general election. Was Jimmy Carter's base radical when he cut off Iranian immigration, and deported Iranian students during the Islamic Revolution / hostage crisis? www.ijreview.com/2015/12/489202-remember-back-when-jimmy-carter-forbade-immigration-from-iran-and-expelled-and-immigrants-from-iran-and-expelled/Look, it may just be semantics, but you can't really "ban" muslims because there isn't a "muslim" country with which to have an immigration policy. He's talking about a temporary ban on muslim immigrants from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other hotbeds of islamofascism. This should have happened on September 12th. Jeezzz!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2015 12:11:44 GMT -5
No, because Bush is a politician and careful with his words. Barring photos of him having sex with farm animals surfacing unexpectedly, an implosion would be unlikely. Trump, on the other hand, makes outrageous statements on purpose, all the time, in order to garner publicity and to appeal to his radical base. It's not hard to imagine him making some statement that is just so outrageous it produces more negative press than positive. In fact he might have finally done it with his anti-Muslim statements about barring Muslims from entering the country, including Muslim citizens who are attempting to return home. Substitute 'Jew' for 'Muslim' in his statement and suddenly those of us who studied history are hearing frightening echoes of the Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda in the 20's. Worse, Trump is doing just what Isis wants us to do - turn this into a religious war. Every other Republican candidate has come out against Trumps' statements. Trumps' hard core voters are sticking with him, but there are more 'I'd vote democratic rather than vote for him' people now, guaranteeing that, even if Trump won the nomination, he could not win the general election. Was Jimmy Carter's base radical when he cut off Iranian immigration, and deported Iranian students during the Islamic Revolution / hostage crisis? www.ijreview.com/2015/12/489202-remember-back-when-jimmy-carter-forbade-immigration-from-iran-and-expelled-and-immigrants-from-iran-and-expelled/Look, it may just be semantics, but you can't really "ban" muslims because there isn't a "muslim" country with which to have an immigration policy. precisely.He's talking about a temporary ban on muslim immigrants from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other hotbeds of islamofascism. This should have happened on September 12th. Jeezzz! no. he is talking about banning ALL MUSLIMS, INCLUDING US CITIZENS, PAUL. please stop making ill informed posts on this. you are not getting the entire picture.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2015 12:14:21 GMT -5
I agree there is some percentage of republican voters who have been staying at home in the last elections. However, what Trump is also waking up are those moderate Republican and independent voters like myself who are appalled at the thought of such a loud mouthed racist being president. I'm certain there are a lot of people (like me) who aren't excited about Hillary, but, if faced with the possibility of having Trump as the POTUS, would get off our asses and drive to the polls just to vote against him. My prediction - if Hillary stays low, avoids any scandals and controversies and picks a solid VP, and if she's running against Trump, she may be the first person elected president not because of who she is and what she's proposing, but simply because she isn't Trump. Trump is gambling that there are enough angry white people to elect him. I think the republicans will manage to keep him from the nomination, which will cause Trump to run as an independent, splitting the Republican vote and guaranteeing Clinton will walk away the winner. ALL my Democrat friends- literally every single one of them- are voting for Trump. They've all told me they've HAD IT with the rabid anti-Americanism, anti-military, anti-police radicalization of the Democratic Party. They're out. I have black tenants in Riviera Beach that asked me if they can put a Trump sign in the yard. I asked them who they voted for in the last election: Obama. They've voted Democrat their entire lives. They think the party cares more about illegal immigrants and Syrian refugees than them. They're done. Anecdotal to be sure. But I have experience managing an email list and info-marketing and I have a saying I developed while doing that with respect to suggestions or complaints: 1 email is a fluke- 2 is a flood. That means that when you have more than one person telling you the same thing, you can extrapolate that out. Especially in a situation where 11 Democrats I know, including black lifelong Democrats, are switching party affiliation and putting signs up in their yard-- Huston, We have a problem. I thought this during the 2012 election cycle- and that's why I predicted a Romney win. I knew the trouble the Democratic Party was in, and I made a mistake by extrapolating 2010 turn out into something like 2012. The difference is Obama-- there were people that were not going to let Obama go down, and God bless the man, they showed up. Think Hillary will have Obama voter enthusiasm vs. Trump? Then you have to figure on something else: Democrats are basically reality TV show idiots to start with, and thus Trump has a lot of pull with them already. That's the trouble when your base has the IQ of an amoeba. I say all that to say this: Trump already has significant Democrat and African American support. Trump is the moderate, big tent, base-expanding Republican the establishment has been saying they want if you really look at the guy objectively. His politics are almost indistinguishable from Romney. Which btw, is why I'm not supporting him. But I think it's a done deal. I think Trump is the next President. I think it's basically over.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,536
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 9, 2015 12:15:16 GMT -5
No, because Bush is a politician and careful with his words. Barring photos of him having sex with farm animals surfacing unexpectedly, an implosion would be unlikely. Trump, on the other hand, makes outrageous statements on purpose, all the time, in order to garner publicity and to appeal to his radical base. It's not hard to imagine him making some statement that is just so outrageous it produces more negative press than positive. In fact he might have finally done it with his anti-Muslim statements about barring Muslims from entering the country, including Muslim citizens who are attempting to return home. Substitute 'Jew' for 'Muslim' in his statement and suddenly those of us who studied history are hearing frightening echoes of the Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda in the 20's. Worse, Trump is doing just what Isis wants us to do - turn this into a religious war. Every other Republican candidate has come out against Trumps' statements. Trumps' hard core voters are sticking with him, but there are more 'I'd vote democratic rather than vote for him' people now, guaranteeing that, even if Trump won the nomination, he could not win the general election. Was Jimmy Carter's base radical when he cut off Iranian immigration, and deported Iranian students during the Islamic Revolution / hostage crisis? www.ijreview.com/2015/12/489202-remember-back-when-jimmy-carter-forbade-immigration-from-iran-and-expelled-and-immigrants-from-iran-and-expelled/Look, it may just be semantics, but you can't really "ban" muslims because there isn't a "muslim" country with which to have an immigration policy. He's talking about a temporary ban on muslim immigrants from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other hotbeds of islamofascism. This should have happened on September 12th. Jeezzz! Here is the difference in those two situations - we were at war with Iran. We are not (or at least, we SHOULD not) be at war with Islam. But you knew that. When you're at war with a county, you cut off diplomatic ties and restrict their citizens from being able to enter your country. Can't do that when you're at war with a religion. 24% of the world's population consider themselves Muslim. Turning away every Muslim that approaches our borders because a small percentage of Muslims hate our guts makes as much sense as shutting down all American Islamic centers because a few of them have hosted anti-American Muslims. Oh, wait, I think Trump has proposed that, too. I keep hearing echoes of the brown shirts closing synagoges and fencing the Jews into ghettos. It is seriously scaring the shit out of me that one of our citizens could be advocating this kind of policy.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Dec 9, 2015 12:16:42 GMT -5
What is the probability ... ... that the Donald is being a candidate as a ruse to promote his personal popularity? That he doesn't want to be president; he just wants to make himself into more of an icon. Saying whatever pops into his mind to be outrageous. Kind of a Howard Stern in politics, with fewer references to lesbians. Perhaps it matters little to him to actually win an election, because he's already won - worldwide notoriety. Hell, he's even got a real life president talking about his comments, though Obama falls short of actually calling him out personally. Of course, should he let the cat out of the bag that he's just stringing people along to see how far they'd go in supporting him, there'll be some rabid conservatives totally pissed off at being played. And played well, if true. I'll speculate this probability as about 3 out of 5.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2015 12:25:10 GMT -5
no. he is talking about banning ALL MUSLIMS, INCLUDING US CITIZENS, PAUL. please stop making ill informed posts on this. you are not getting the entire picture. No, he isn't. And he never proposed a "registry" for muslims, either. And he said that it's temporary until we can figure out what the hell is going on. I'm sorry- but I'm not alone in agreeing that makes perfect sense. As I said- it should have been done on September 12, 2001. I readily admit, there's little anyone could say about muslims that would upset me, though. We're being murdered by muslims. Radical islam is a threat, and this country needs to FINALLY be on a war footing. Does that mean hostility towards muslims, particularly muslims who are US citizens? No, of course not. However, any truly moderate muslim will agree- they see the radicals getting a foothold. They didn't flee their shithole islamist country to have the murderous assholes follow them here, so they'll be understanding. If they aren't understanding, that's really just too fucking bad. People are dying. And if politicians are willing to take illegal and unConstitutional action to disarm American citizens, but won't take reasonable, prudent, Constitutional action to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic-- then it's time for new leadership. Trump will have my vote on this basis alone. Immigration and terrorism are inextricably linked-- the dots are connected. 9/11 was primarily a failure of immigration and national security policy, not intelligence. You can't flood the country with too many people to count, or keep track of and expect the intelligence community to catch the bad actors before they unleash murder and mayhem. I mean what in the actual FUCK were we thinking making some angry ass muslim who got in arguments with co-workers every day over his religion a fucking school cafeteria inspector? It's way past time to fix this.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,536
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 9, 2015 12:30:40 GMT -5
Almost all my relatives are die hard Republicans. Out of about 20 in laws, NONE of them want to vote for Trump. These are very religiously conservative, Southern republicans. So - my anecdotal evidence is just as worthless as yours, and it cancels each other out.
There's your problem. You only know 11 democrats. If you knew more than that, you might know that they are not reality TV show idiots.
No.
Possibly he is, but he's doing a bang up job hiding underneath the bad hair, anti-Semitic, Anti-Hispanic, Anti-Muslim, anti-woman, cripple mocking, arrogant facade he's got going there.
The reason why most Washington Republicans are anti-Trump is that Trump is taking a giant crap all over their party name. They've spent the last 8 years trying to prove that they are the big tent party, only to have Trump bust into the place and start insulting everyone but the white men. If Trump does get the party nomination, it will set the Republican party back decades, and guarantee that they will be the minority party moving forward, as the population of the country becomes more and more non-white.
I think sometimes, Paul, you confuse reality for what you would like reality to look like.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2015 13:02:29 GMT -5
Well, once again literally EVERYONE is wrong and Trump is right. This is why he's leading. He has not only not proposed anything illegal or unConstitutional, he has in effect said that he would IMPLEMENT a provision of the law (it's already law, kids):
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens reads, in part:
We're done. The debate over the law and the Constitution is over.
This is now a policy debate- should we, or shouldn't we? Can we is settled law.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,241
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 9, 2015 13:23:27 GMT -5
Well, once again literally EVERYONE is wrong and Trump is right. This is why he's leading. He has not only not proposed anything illegal or unConstitutional, he has in effect said that he would IMPLEMENT a provision of the law (it's already law, kids): 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens reads, in part: We're done. The debate over the law and the Constitution is over. This is now a policy debate- should we, or shouldn't we? Can we is settled law. ? I did not think the debate was can we, but should we, and what it would mean.
Did not find that section, but the law is long. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
|
|