I was right: President Elect Trump

[weltschmerz]

Paul, you were saying that Cain could win. Then you said that Romney would win. Surprise!

Trump will never be POTUS.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2015 17:33:59 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Glad I'm not the only one that remember his optimism for the black walnut. Those threads were out of touch political gold. Cain wasn't even an actual candidate. He was using it as his book tour. I should have bookmarked a couple of those.

i am not convinced that Trump is a real candidate yet, either.  but i AM convinced he will "go the distance".  he will be in the primaries.  the GOP wants it that way, because the alternative is that he goes rogue and f(*ks everything up for them.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2015 17:26:24 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

It will be a long, long time before we get the awesome combination of corruption, incompetence, ineffectiveness, and effectiveness that we have in Obama. He is beyond a doubt the worst President we've ever had. He's worse than Wilson, Harding, and FDR combined.

Jesus dude, you've never had a real firm grasp on political reality, but posts this far out of touch really make me think you need help. Seriously.

i like the self contradictory first sentence the best. 

[weltschmerz]

Aug 17, 2015 17:33:59 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Glad I'm not the only one that remember his optimism for the black walnut. Those threads were out of touch political gold. Cain wasn't even an actual candidate. He was using it as his book tour. I should have bookmarked a couple of those.

I think Paul sent Mr. 999 money.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2015 17:26:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 17, 2015 17:15:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Halperin: "Trump Reached Turning Point." "Most Establishment Candidates Think He Can Win"

www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/17/halperin-trump-reached-turning-point-most-estab-cands-think-he-can-win-nomination/

the NOMINATION?  sure. 

Well, so far he's running unopposed.  We've spent so much time talking about the Republican clown car, we haven't really discussed the Democrat short bus yet, have we? 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2015 17:40:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 17, 2015 17:26:24 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Jesus dude, you've never had a real firm grasp on political reality, but posts this far out of touch really make me think you need help. Seriously.

i like the self contradictory first sentence the best. 

Obama has been extraordinarily effective.  One of the most effective executives ever to hold the office.  He's just been effective at accomplishing the exact wrong things.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Trump wants to end giving citizenship to babies born here. Hasn't he heard of the 14th Amendment? What a jerk.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2015 17:58:02 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 17, 2015 17:40:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i like the self contradictory first sentence the best. 

Obama has been extraordinarily effective.  One of the most effective executives ever to hold the office.  He's just been effective at accomplishing the exact wrong things.

generally speaking, efficacy is how presidents are judged.  the reason W and Harding are judged so poorly is because they were extraordinarily ineffective executives.  i can give you examples if you are interested.  but i know you aren't.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2015 17:57:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 17, 2015 17:26:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the NOMINATION?  sure. 

Well, so far he's running unopposed.  We've spent so much time talking about the Republican clown car, we haven't really discussed the Democratic short bus yet, have we? 

i don't think that the GOP side is a clown car at all.  on the contrary, i think the field is extraordinarily qualified, and far more interesting than the Democratic side.  and that is a real problem for Democrats.  Trump is good for the GOP, so long as he loses the nomination.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 17, 2015 17:52:35 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Aug 17, 2015 17:33:59 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Glad I'm not the only one that remember his optimism for the black walnut. Those threads were out of touch political gold. Cain wasn't even an actual candidate. He was using it as his book tour. I should have bookmarked a couple of those.

I think Paul sent Mr. 999 money.

$500 for an inferior pizza.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2015 18:12:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 17, 2015 17:57:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Well, so far he's running unopposed.  We've spent so much time talking about the Republican clown car, we haven't really discussed the Democratic short bus yet, have we? 

i don't think that the GOP side is a clown car at all.  on the contrary, i think the field is extraordinarily qualified, and far more interesting than the Democratic side.  and that is a real problem for them.  Trump is good for the GOP, so long as he loses the nomination.

I don't think Trump is going to get the nomination, and I doubt he'll go third party. That being said, if he gets the nomination- I'll vote for him without a second thought, and he will win the Presidency.  What the mathematically challenged GOP establishment needs to understand is that they win by energizing their base. The GOP can only lose by alienating the base. They can't lose by losing the black vote, they can't lose by alienating Hispanics, they can't lose by angering independents. They can only lose one way: turning off the conservative base.  I'm not going to go into it- but it's really just math.  Mitt Romney would have lost in 2012 with 75% of the Hispanic vote- which of course no GOP candidate will get in Karl Rove's most outrageous fantasy scenario.  Romney did get a huge majority of independents- with margins in most precincts in excess of 10%- in fact he averaged 18% nation-wide.  He lost because he lost conservatives.  He lost because he got somewhere between 2 and 3 million fewer votes than John McCain.  Actually, 2012 was a low-turnout election, and Obama actually got fewer votes as well- somewhere between 7 and 8 million fewer votes than in 2008.

Do you think an election year with Trump would ever be characterized as "low turnout"?  Given that there'll be high turnout, who would you say Trump will most energize to take action?  If you are even capable of deluding yourself into believing that Trump will energize his opposition to "vote against" him in greater numbers than the numbers of people who have gone full-blown Howard Beale in the Bush-Obama years, then it might not actually be worth it to continue this discussion.  

I think Democrats and Republicans are missing that for a great many people, it ain't about right and left, it's about right and wrong.  If Trump gets the nod on the GOP side, both parties are toast-- I wouldn't look for Trump to run third party, but I'd look for Bush to do it.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2015 18:28:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 17, 2015 18:12:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't think that the GOP side is a clown car at all.  on the contrary, i think the field is extraordinarily qualified, and far more interesting than the Democratic side.  and that is a real problem for them.  Trump is good for the GOP, so long as he loses the nomination.

I don't think Trump is going to get the nomination, and I doubt he'll go third party. That being said, if he gets the nomination- I'll vote for him without a second thought, and he will win the Presidency.  What the mathematically challenged GOP establishment needs to understand is that they win by energizing their base. The GOP can only lose by alienating the base. They can't lose by losing the black vote, they can't lose by alienating Hispanics, they can't lose by angering independents. They can only lose one way: turning off the conservative base.  I'm not going to go into it- but it's really just math.  Mitt Romney would have lost in 2012 with 75% of the Hispanic vote- which of course no GOP candidate will get in Karl Rove's most outrageous fantasy scenario.  Romney did get a huge majority of independents- with margins in most precincts in excess of 10%- in fact he averaged 18% nation-wide.  He lost because he lost conservatives.  He lost because he got somewhere between 2 and 3 million fewer votes than John McCain.  Actually, 2012 was a low-turnout election, and Obama actually got fewer votes as well- somewhere between 7 and 8 million fewer votes than in 2008.

Do you think an election year with Trump would ever be characterized as "low turnout"?  Given that there'll be high turnout, who would you say Trump will most energize to take action?  If you are even capable of deluding yourself into believing that Trump will energize his opposition to "vote against" him in greater numbers than the numbers of people who have gone full-blown Howard Beale in the Bush-Obama years, then it might not actually be worth it to continue this discussion. 

high turnout is bad for the GOP, so you had better hope you are wrong.  the best thing that can happen is boring candidates- that both Democrats AND Republicans are so bored that they stay home.  that kind of demographic slant favors Republicans- not high turnout.

I think Democrats and Republicans are missing that for a great many people, it ain't about right and left, it's about right and wrong.  If Trump gets the nod on the GOP side, both parties are toast-- I wouldn't look for Trump to run third party, but I'd look for Bush to do it.

my prediction: if Trump wins the nomination, they will lose the hispanic vote by approximately the amount they lost the black vote in the last two elections, and they will lose a s(*tload of house and senate seats as a result.  Trump would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP if he wins the nomination.  and i can say that with almost Paul-like certainty.  though i will never be as certain in my realism as you are in your fiction. 

i would not count on demographics helping the situation, either.  this is shaping up to be the best year for liberals since before 911:

hotair.com/archives/2015/06/12/fivethirtyeight-no-conservatives-arent-disappearing-or-anything/

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Trump represents the disgust many people have with current politicians. He has no answers and never will. He won't win the GOP nomination but will have them thinking like they didn't last time. The key for the GOP is to not attack Trump or Hillary but to come up with a doable platform for better government. Start with getting real nonpartisan action in Congress. Time for elected officials to work for the people.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 15, 2015 21:02:09 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Lets put it this way to end any argument. Can anyone post a credible link to President Obama stating he is OK with Iran having a nuclear weapon?

That is not the correct question.  The question is: can anyone post a credible link to any source OTHER THAN Obama and Obama shills that clearly demonstrates why Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon as a result of Obama's deal?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2015 18:44:12 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Trump represents the disgust many people have with current politicians. He has no answers and never will. He won't win the GOP nomination but will have them thinking like they didn't last time. The key for the GOP is to not attack Trump or Hillary but to come up with a doable platform for better government. Start with getting real nonpartisan action in Congress. Time for elected officials to work for the people.

Hey- I don't disagree one little bit with your first sentence.  I don't even really disagree with the second.  From there on, you're just spouting the same old claptrap that enemies of Republicans have successfully convinced the GOP leadership for the last 40 years. They even thought it in 1976 about Reagan, and though they appeared to be right, they were wrong about why Ford lost. Reagan showed the way it's done.  You identify the problem, and you propose completely unworkable and unrealistic (according to conventional wisdom) solutions for dealing with it.

Specifics:

Trump's Immigration Reform Proposal.  Trump’s plan includes a border wall, E-verify and ending birthright citizenship.
He also explains how Mexico will end up paying for the wall. 

www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

You could hear a pin drop today from his opponents.  They're all convinced it's political death to openly agree with it, but they also know that there's nothing in it that isn't good for the country, and that the vast majority of likely voters don't agree with.  You want non-partisan? It doesn't mean conservatives surrender. It means doing what Trump did here: forget about the lobbyists who want to institute systematic vote fraud on the left, or those that want cheap labor on the right-- and you do what's best for the country. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

DJ- If Trump gets the nomination, he will win in a landslide.  

"Make America Great Again" will become the new "Hope and Change" and he will be unstoppable. 

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Aug 17, 2015 19:26:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 15, 2015 21:02:09 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Lets put it this way to end any argument. Can anyone post a credible link to President Obama stating he is OK with Iran having a nuclear weapon?

That is not the correct question.  The question is: can anyone post a credible link to any source OTHER THAN Obama and Obama shills that clearly demonstrates why Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon as a result of Obama's deal?

My question was correct. It was posted that President Obama is OK with Iran having a nuclear weapon. A complete lie and I asked for a link to him saying that.

Now to answer you. If we take away most of their centrifuges for enriching uranium and can inspect any facility at any time how can they develop a nuclear weapon? If they renege the sanctions return.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP  Birth right citizenship is supported by the 14th Amendment. I don't know what it would take for Trump to end that.

[zibazinski]

Well, even if we are forced to keep "birthed" people here, we aren't obligated to keep their parents.

[weltschmerz]

Aug 17, 2015 18:28:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 17, 2015 18:12:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't think that the GOP side is a clown car at all.  on the contrary, i think the field is extraordinarily qualified, and far more interesting than the Democratic side.  and that is a real problem for them.  Trump is good for the GOP, so long as he loses the nomination.

I don't think Trump is going to get the nomination, and I doubt he'll go third party. That being said, if he gets the nomination- I'll vote for him without a second thought, and he will win the Presidency.  What the mathematically challenged GOP establishment needs to understand is that they win by energizing their base. The GOP can only lose by alienating the base. They can't lose by losing the black vote, they can't lose by alienating Hispanics, they can't lose by angering independents. They can only lose one way: turning off the conservative base.  I'm not going to go into it- but it's really just math.  Mitt Romney would have lost in 2012 with 75% of the Hispanic vote- which of course no GOP candidate will get in Karl Rove's most outrageous fantasy scenario.  Romney did get a huge majority of independents- with margins in most precincts in excess of 10%- in fact he averaged 18% nation-wide.  He lost because he lost conservatives.  He lost because he got somewhere between 2 and 3 million fewer votes than John McCain.  Actually, 2012 was a low-turnout election, and Obama actually got fewer votes as well- somewhere between 7 and 8 million fewer votes than in 2008.

Do you think an election year with Trump would ever be characterized as "low turnout"?  Given that there'll be high turnout, who would you say Trump will most energize to take action?  If you are even capable of deluding yourself into believing that Trump will energize his opposition to "vote against" him in greater numbers than the numbers of people who have gone full-blown Howard Beale in the Bush-Obama years, then it might not actually be worth it to continue this discussion.  

I think Democrats and Republicans are missing that for a great many people, it ain't about right and left, it's about right and wrong.  If Trump gets the nod on the GOP side, both parties are toast-- I wouldn't look for Trump to run third party, but I'd look for Bush to do it.

Wasn't Going Rogue Bible Spice and the Tea Party supposed to do that last time? What happened again?

Oh yeah.....they lost.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2015 20:24:32 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, even if we are forced to keep "birthed" people here, we aren't obligated to keep their parents.

i already said i agreed with that.  i doubt anyone else disagreed with it, either.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2015 21:25:02 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Aug 17, 2015 18:28:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't think Trump is going to get the nomination, and I doubt he'll go third party. That being said, if he gets the nomination- I'll vote for him without a second thought, and he will win the Presidency.  What the mathematically challenged GOP establishment needs to understand is that they win by energizing their base. The GOP can only lose by alienating the base. They can't lose by losing the black vote, they can't lose by alienating Hispanics, they can't lose by angering independents. They can only lose one way: turning off the conservative base.  I'm not going to go into it- but it's really just math.  Mitt Romney would have lost in 2012 with 75% of the Hispanic vote- which of course no GOP candidate will get in Karl Rove's most outrageous fantasy scenario.  Romney did get a huge majority of independents- with margins in most precincts in excess of 10%- in fact he averaged 18% nation-wide.  He lost because he lost conservatives.  He lost because he got somewhere between 2 and 3 million fewer votes than John McCain.  Actually, 2012 was a low-turnout election, and Obama actually got fewer votes as well- somewhere between 7 and 8 million fewer votes than in 2008.

Do you think an election year with Trump would ever be characterized as "low turnout"?  Given that there'll be high turnout, who would you say Trump will most energize to take action?  If you are even capable of deluding yourself into believing that Trump will energize his opposition to "vote against" him in greater numbers than the numbers of people who have gone full-blown Howard Beale in the Bush-Obama years, then it might not actually be worth it to continue this discussion.  

I think Democrats and Republicans are missing that for a great many people, it ain't about right and left, it's about right and wrong.  If Trump gets the nod on the GOP side, both parties are toast-- I wouldn't look for Trump to run third party, but I'd look for Bush to do it.

Wasn't Going Rogue Bible Spice and the Tea Party supposed to do that last time? What happened again?

Oh yeah.....they lost.

it doesn't work PERIOD.  high voter turnout is universally BAD for the GOP.  i know of precisely ZERO exceptions to that.  NONE.

[tallguy]

Birth right citizenship is supported by the 14th Amendment. I don't know what it would take for Trump to end that.

I would contend again that it is a misreading of the 14th Amendment to say that the children of illegal aliens qualify.  The key should be in the phrase, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."

Illegal aliens by the very fact of their existence here have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.  If they had in fact done so, they would not in fact be here.  Since the parents have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, any children born of them while here cannot be said to be subject to that jurisdiction either.  Thus they should not qualify for citizenship.  Their citizenship should follow that of the parents.  

[tallguy]

Possibly not.  The court has re-interpreted things before to create a new result.  Heller being one.  A new case being heard may be enough.

We can hope.

[weltschmerz]

Is Trump going to kick Obama out of the country? Wasn't he a rabid birther at one time? What happened with all that?

[dondub]

At one time trump was rabid.

[weltschmerz]

Aug 17, 2015 23:36:10 GMT -5 dondub said:

At one time trump was rabid.

...and, did he get shots?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2015 21:25:02 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Aug 17, 2015 18:28:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't think Trump is going to get the nomination, and I doubt he'll go third party. That being said, if he gets the nomination- I'll vote for him without a second thought, and he will win the Presidency.  What the mathematically challenged GOP establishment needs to understand is that they win by energizing their base. The GOP can only lose by alienating the base. They can't lose by losing the black vote, they can't lose by alienating Hispanics, they can't lose by angering independents. They can only lose one way: turning off the conservative base.  I'm not going to go into it- but it's really just math.  Mitt Romney would have lost in 2012 with 75% of the Hispanic vote- which of course no GOP candidate will get in Karl Rove's most outrageous fantasy scenario.  Romney did get a huge majority of independents- with margins in most precincts in excess of 10%- in fact he averaged 18% nation-wide.  He lost because he lost conservatives.  He lost because he got somewhere between 2 and 3 million fewer votes than John McCain.  Actually, 2012 was a low-turnout election, and Obama actually got fewer votes as well- somewhere between 7 and 8 million fewer votes than in 2008.

Do you think an election year with Trump would ever be characterized as "low turnout"?  Given that there'll be high turnout, who would you say Trump will most energize to take action?  If you are even capable of deluding yourself into believing that Trump will energize his opposition to "vote against" him in greater numbers than the numbers of people who have gone full-blown Howard Beale in the Bush-Obama years, then it might not actually be worth it to continue this discussion.  

I think Democrats and Republicans are missing that for a great many people, it ain't about right and left, it's about right and wrong.  If Trump gets the nod on the GOP side, both parties are toast-- I wouldn't look for Trump to run third party, but I'd look for Bush to do it.

Wasn't Going Rogue Bible Spice and the Tea Party supposed to do that last time? What happened again?

Oh yeah.....they lost.

The GOP has not run a conservative candidate since 1984.  That means we really do not know what would happen in the general election since nobody under 50 years old has ever had the opportunity to vote for a conservative. 

Trump's Appeal To Millennials
www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/08/12/trump_s_appeal_to_millennials

CALLER: Hey, Rush. I want to respond to about what you were saying about Hillary and the Democratic Party, and I think it speaks to why Trump is resonating with a lot of Millennials right now. With Millennials like myself, our whole lives we've been bombarded with "sharing" and "teamwork" and "you can't always do everything by yourself; you need to have someone there with you," "don't have unrealistic expectations."

And here comes Trump saying, "I'm really rich." And when I hear him say that, I'm so glad that someone is able to say, "You know what? I'm proud of how much I've achieved, and you can achieve that, too." That's inspiring for a lot of Millennials. Our whole lives we've been taught, "Not only don't pursue being wealthy, but why would you want to be? Wealthy people are evil, they're mean, and you should be ashamed of success, almost." And that's really what the Democratic Party represents.

I'm just so glad that we finally have a Republican not running away from their wealth like Romney. You know, like he's ashamed of it. "Oh, I don't really have that much money." Here comes Trump: "I'm really rich!" That is almost the same thing as hip-hop artists, if you look at hip-hop music -- and I'm not really a big fan of it, but it's very popular with Millennials. Essentially what the theme is -- the central theme -- in hip-hop music is just bragging about success and coming up from nothing.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2015 19:50:22 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The GOP can only lose by alienating the base. They can't lose by losing the black vote, they can't lose by alienating Hispanics, they can't lose by angering independents. They can only lose one way: turning off the conservative base. I'm not going to go into it- but it's really just math.

Well, you're half right, it really is just math. Unfortunately the math proves the rest of your rant wrong. Here's why.

As of 2012 hispanics/latinos make up 17% of the US population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

As of 2012 blacks make up 12.6% of the US population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States


Independents are harder to quantify and lots of people identify as independent but lean one direction or the other, so we'll have to break the numbers down a little bit. In straight self identification, as of January of this year, 42% of people identify as independent. 25% identify as Republican, and 31% as Democratic. www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

So, let's do some simple math;
31% (dems) + 42% (independents) + 17% (hispanics) + 12.6% (blacks) = 102.6%
Clearly that can't be right, because we can't have voter turnout over 100%. What's really going on is we're double counting the blacks and hispanics, since some of them are already included in the self identify as dems or independents number. So, let's take them out for now, leaving us with just the following;
31% (dems) + 42% (independents) = 73%. The Republicans already lose just from alienating independents, alienating blacks and hispanics would just be icing on the cake of their loss.

Now, I said earlier that we should break the numbers down a bit, and I think we should. 42% say they're independent but a lot of them lean one direction or the other and we should account for that. In addition to the 31% of people that identify as Democrats an additional 16% initially identify as independent but on further probing admit they lean Democratic. So, the likely Dem vote is actually 47%.  In addition to the 25% that identify as Republican an additional 16% identify as independent but admit to leaning Republican on further probing. So the likely Republican vote is 41%. Of the 42% that initially self identify as independent we're only left with 10% that don't lean one direction or the other. They're the true independent vote that's up for grabs, so back to the math.www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

If the Republicans attempt to alienate everyone except the base, they have 41% of the vote. The Dems have 47% of the already Democratic leaning vote, plus they presumably pick up the remaining 10% of self identified independents that don't admit to leaning in one direction or the other, leaving the dems with 57% of the vote.

Again, simple math, so Paul, which is bigger 57% or 41%?

Or, in other words, you're right it is simple math, but you're wrong that the Republicans can win with just the base. The Republican base is already at a disadvantage since it's smaller than the Democratic base. Trying to get elected on just that base while actively alienating blacks, hispanics, and independents is political suicide. The math just doesn't work.

It doesn't matter.  Because we're talking about registered voters.  But hey- you tried.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Conservatives are still the largest ideological group- 38%.  If they have a clear choice, they'll vote- and the silly idea among conservative elites that they can win by alienating 38% of the vote and make it up by appealing to 5% or 10% more of the 17% just doesn't add up.  As I stated- Romney could have won 75% of the Hispanic vote-- added to his massive double digit victory among independents and he STILL would have LOST.  People forget- the TEA Party grew out of frustration with BUSH, while BUSH was still president.  They still don't have a home- and when they find one, BOTH parties as currently constituted are in heap big trouble.