bitmod said: He represents the anger at the establishment and Obama's failed presidency.
Anger for sure, but it is not really that simple. Trump followers, by in large are, middle aged, middle class, disenfranchised, unemployed or under employed, no college white males whose socio-economic status is primarily a result of greedy corporations, wall street bankers and warmongers, who sent their working class jobs to China, foreclosed on their homes and tanked the economy with a few wars. It really had nothing to do with Obama. And by the way, if you take Fox News at face value, Obama has a 49% favorability rating but congress only gets 13%. The grid lock in congress is not Obamas fault. I'm not a Trump follower but I'm angry too.
I just wonder if the Trump supporters are really going to show up at the polls in November.
“No one in this world, so far as I know - and I
have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me -
has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great
masses of the plain people.”
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
“The worst government is often the most moral.
One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when
fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.”
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
“A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.”
“The whole aim of practical politics is to
keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by
menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
“Life is a dead-end street.” “Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” “In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
You mean he's a hypocrite? What a surprise. I'm so shocked! This will certainly end his campaign - the fact that he owns Apple stock even though he said people should boycott Apple. His supporters will surely care about that.
He has such strong support among a seemingly ever-increasing number of people (if the polls are to be believed) who don't care what he does or says. They're going to support him no matter what. Remember when he said that if he shot someone in broad daylight on the street in Manhattan, his fans would still support him? Seemed like stupid immature bravado at the time, but he was right. It doesn't matter that he won't release his taxes (or if he does, that they'll show that he either isn't as rich as he says or that he didn't pay much or that he didn't really contribute to charity), that he's treated women badly, that he seems to have the hots for his own daughter, that he doesn't know anything about policy, that he's had a ton of business failures and has walked away from debt, that he's suggested that he'd use nuclear weapons in Europe, that he keeps reversing his positions and that he's already backing away from his previous positions by saying, "no one's doing anything - it's just a proposal". They love his big mouth and they confuse that big immature vulgar mouth with honesty. Every insane thing that he's done or said has worked for him. I still think this was originally intended as a branding exercise and that he was trying to lose, but it backfired.
For a long time I thought there was no way he could win. The Democrats would have 232 electoral votes without the tossup states (FL (29), OH (18), VA(13), WI(10), CO(9), IA(6), NV(6),
NM(5), NH(4)) so they just need 38 more. If they won Florida they'd have 261 and they'd just need 9 from the remaining 8 tossup states with 71 electoral votes - almost impossible to lose -- Obama won every one of those states. But if Trump wins Florida (even though Obama didn't need Florida to win the last election) and Pennsylvania, which is looking like a real possibility, Hillary would need 58 of the remaining 71 tossup state electoral votes (or 52 if Utah turns Democratic).
And if the Bernie supporters act out at the Democratic Convention, it's going to be 1968 all over again. It doesn't matter if they're right. What matters is that as in 1968, the riots at the convention (even though it was the Daley's Chicago police who rioted) made the country think that's what Democrats would bring to the country if they won. That's how we got Nixon.
I think Hillary is going to do very badly against him in debates. You can't debate someone who only makes statements that are vague generalities. Hillary will say something specific about policy and Trump will reply with the equivalent of "Yo mama is ugly and everyone in Washington is a fool and Benghazi is your fault". And he'll win.
It could really happen. We might be electing a President who makes George W. Bush look like a brilliant statesman. But If Trump does get elected, my guess is that he gets impeached before the four years are out because he'll be hated by both sides of the aisle. I wonder if he realizes that he's got to put all his businesses in a trust while he's POTUS.
She'll do fine in debate, he's got a pile of shit one mile high on every single subject. She just has to goad him a bit and he's done. He can't help himself.
The GOP never really went after him because they were basically thinking the same thing but it less demented words. HRC doesn't have these limitations.
Just use his words, quotes, hundreds of video clips and 50 flip flops on every issue and see his ratings with women go to 5%.. (it's 15%-20% now)
Bury him in his own tripe and have in go bezerk on twitter without any further response than some other quote of his on the subject...
If you are going to pick which lie of his you want to believe, I don't think you should choose that one.
Video already proves you wrong, sorry.volcan said:
The grid lock in congress is [Congress’] fault.
Good. In this one aspect of the statement, they’re doing their jobs. There’s nothing wrong with that.
foggyhill said:
This guy is dangerous yapping smelling mongrel you'd want to kick hard and long if he was anywhere near you.
Sounds almost like a threat.
Politiifact says almost everything he says is a god damn lie : think about that.
When you think about that, think about this: your vaunted Politi”fact” is lying to you. You’re a lunatic if you trust them about him OR Clinton. Three percent? Are you fucking kidding?
tallest skil said: Good. In this one aspect of the statement, they’re doing their jobs. There’s nothing wrong with that.
The Republicans blocking everything the President supports just to deny him any success is not doing their job. They even blocked their own bill simply because Obama supported it. For example, the Republicans suggested comprehensive immigration reform until Obama supported it. Then they were rabidly opposed to it and even voted against their own legislation.
I feel like Donald trump's that kid who comes to your birthday party and wants the first slice of cake and hits on your aunt for some reason and then leaves early
The Republicans blocking everything the President supports just to deny him any success is not doing their job.
1. That’s exactly what their job is.
2. They don’t do what you claim. They’re fucking milquetoasts who need to be removed for not doing what their representation wants.
3. Passing laws is not success in America. I don’t know about where you live, but we find success from the least amount of government possible.
the Republicans suggested comprehensive immigration reform until Obama supported it. Then they were rabidly opposed to it and even voted against their own legislation.
tallest skil said: 3. Passing laws is not success in America. I don’t know about where you live, but we find success from the least amount of
government possible.
You say you want fewer laws passed but you just want the current laws that you disagree with repealed. I'm sure you'd agree that more laws are better so long as it's laws like banning Muslims, surveillance on mosques, outlawing abortion, creating tariffs on foreign goods, scraping all trade deals, rounding up 11 million latinos and expelling them, building a wall, end birthright citizenship, repeal the Affordable Care Act, cutting support for allies, make a federal libel law so he can sue newspapers, make waterboarding legal, end environmental restrictions on business, get out of Nato, etc. Now, those are the kind of laws that you could probably get behind in a big way.
You say you want fewer laws passed but you just want the current laws that you disagree with repealed.
And what’s wrong with that? That means a smaller government overall.
I'm sure you'd agree that more laws are better so long as it's laws like banning Muslims
Already on the books.
surveillance on mosques
Already happens illegally.
outlawing abortion
That would be the repeal of a law.
creating tariffs on foreign goods
DAMN STRAIGHT. How do you expect a nation to survive otherwise?
scraping all trade deals
That would be the repeal of a law.
rounding up 11 million latinos and expelling them
30 million, and that’s in the Constitution.
building a wall
That’s in the Constitution.
end birthright citizenship
That would be the repeal of a law.
repeal the Affordable Care Act
That would be the repeal of a law.
cutting support for allies
That would be the repeal of a law.
make a federal libel law so he can sue newspapers
Nah. I don’t know that something like this would be the best course of action, but the media is bought and paid for, so something has to be done about that.
make waterboarding legal
Torture has never in the history of man been an effective tool for interrogation. The act of torture speaks of mental illness, and so its prohibition leads to a healthier society. In my view, if you want to kill someone, just lock them in a room and pump argon in. They pass out and never wake up. Safe, cheap, humane, perfect.
end environmental restrictions on business
AGW doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean environmentalism is bad. No fucking “carbon taxes”, but obviously restrictions on what enters the chain of consumption are required. The way you people act it’s as though your opponents want to bring back leaded silverware and makeup...
get out of Nato
And all the other foreign alliances. And that would be the repeal of a law.
Now, those are the kind of laws that you could probably get behind in a big way.
So you’ve only listed one category of things where I’m increasing the number of laws, but given the rest of what I want I’m certain there will be fewer overall. There may even be fewer within that category, getting rid of all the free trade garbage.
The problem with leftists is that they want to project their delusions onto others. Leftism is predicated on totalitarian control of all aspects of government, society, and economics. Thus, they must pass restrictive laws, prohibiting citizens to specific actions in specific areas of life. There’s a good section in BREXIT: The Movie on this concept. Meanwhile, republicans (not RINOs, not the Republican party–people of the persuasion who like a republic) feel that only things which are damaging to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (within a society) should be banned.
I can appreciate some of what libertarians say, in this regard, but I cannot approve of the concept itself because it’s an economic policy masquerading as a complete ideology.
Repealing a law or passing a law is essentially the same process. Congress gets together and votes on a bill. Nine times out of ten a repeal ends up re-enacting a law rather than an outright repeal, because we all know Congress cannot leave anything alone or do anything simply. For example if they made a federal law to end foreign aid, they would likely have to specify various conditions, so it would be a re-enacted law. Everything I mentioned, if passed, would ultimately become a new law based on a bill drafted and voted on by Congress and then presented to the president. I'm all for smaller government but, I don't see any smaller government in this scenario.
Anger for sure, but it is not really that simple. Trump followers, by in large are, middle aged, middle class, disenfranchised, unemployed or under employed, white males and their socio-economic status is primarily a result of greedy corporations, wall street bankers and warmongers, who sent their working class jobs to China, foreclosed on their homes and tanked the economy with a few wars. It really had nothing to do with Obama.
But wasn't the great Obama supposed to fix all that? That was the promise. Oops.
volcan said:I just wonder if the Trump supporters are really going to show up at the polls in November.
This question was already asked last summer when Trump declared his candidacy, and has clearly been answered. Right now, the Dems should be far more concerned about the same question concerning the Bernie supporters that are refusing to vote for Hillary in November.
Comments
I just wonder if the Trump supporters are really going to show up at the polls in November.
At least Bush you;d be OK to have a beer with (even if he was an puppet and an idiot, Cheney being the real power).
This guy is dangerous yapping smelling mongrel you'd want to kick hard and long if he was anywhere near you.
Politiifact says almost everything he says is a god damn lie : think about that.
That dangerous navel gazing leech lies 95% of the time!
Clinton only has 3% outright lies!! and those walking turd calls her a liar.
Mencken also said:
“No one in this world, so far as I know - and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me - has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
“The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.”
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
“A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.”
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
“Life is a dead-end street.”
“Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
“In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
The GOP never really went after him because they were basically thinking the same thing but it less demented words. HRC doesn't have these limitations.
Just use his words, quotes, hundreds of video clips and 50 flip flops on every issue and see his ratings with women go to 5%.. (it's 15%-20% now)
Bury him in his own tripe and have in go bezerk on twitter without any further response than some other quote of his on the subject...
“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”
Sounds almost like a threat.
When you think about that, think about this: your vaunted Politi”fact” is lying to you. You’re a lunatic if you trust them about him OR Clinton. Three percent? Are you fucking kidding?
2. They don’t do what you claim. They’re fucking milquetoasts who need to be removed for not doing what their representation wants.
3. Passing laws is not success in America. I don’t know about where you live, but we find success from the least amount of government possible.
Good. Neither proposal is acceptable.
Already on the books.
Already happens illegally.
That would be the repeal of a law.
DAMN STRAIGHT. How do you expect a nation to survive otherwise?
That would be the repeal of a law.
30 million, and that’s in the Constitution.
That’s in the Constitution.
That would be the repeal of a law.
That would be the repeal of a law.
That would be the repeal of a law.
Nah. I don’t know that something like this would be the best course of action, but the media is bought and paid for, so something has to be done about that.
Torture has never in the history of man been an effective tool for interrogation. The act of torture speaks of mental illness, and so its prohibition leads to a healthier society. In my view, if you want to kill someone, just lock them in a room and pump argon in. They pass out and never wake up. Safe, cheap, humane, perfect.
AGW doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean environmentalism is bad. No fucking “carbon taxes”, but obviously restrictions on what enters the chain of consumption are required. The way you people act it’s as though your opponents want to bring back leaded silverware and makeup...
And all the other foreign alliances. And that would be the repeal of a law.
So you’ve only listed one category of things where I’m increasing the number of laws, but given the rest of what I want I’m certain there will be fewer overall. There may even be fewer within that category, getting rid of all the free trade garbage.
The problem with leftists is that they want to project their delusions onto others. Leftism is predicated on totalitarian control of all aspects of government, society, and economics. Thus, they must pass restrictive laws, prohibiting citizens to specific actions in specific areas of life. There’s a good section in BREXIT: The Movie on this concept. Meanwhile, republicans (not RINOs, not the Republican party–people of the persuasion who like a republic) feel that only things which are damaging to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (within a society) should be banned.
I can appreciate some of what libertarians say, in this regard, but I cannot approve of the concept itself because it’s an economic policy masquerading as a complete ideology.
This question was already asked last summer when Trump declared his candidacy, and has clearly been answered. Right now, the Dems should be far more concerned about the same question concerning the Bernie supporters that are refusing to vote for Hillary in November.