Topic: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Ugh, it's gonna be Trump and Hillary isn't it? 

I'm moving to Canada.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

It may not be Trump. If Carson, Kasich and Rubio dropped out, I think Cruz could take it. At the very least, it could lead to a brokered convention, where I don't think Trump would win.

But Rubio won't drop out. So Trump may get it. Rubio will want a brokered convention at this point, because it is really his only chance. I don't think Rubio will even take Florida, which is bad for him.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well the whole thing is a mess.  My number one enemy in this election.  I hate her.  She's basically a real-life version of the guy from House of Cards (who I also hate).  The House of Cards creator has already said that he based the wife on Hillary, and she's probably worse than Frank is.

Rubio was polling as being able to beat her.  But at this point, Rubio could still win and then Trump would run 3rd party.  Which would split the vote and then that power-hungry monster would get her wish.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Carson isn't going to drop out until the donations dry up.  His whole campaign is a money making scam.  99% of the money coming in to his Super Pac gets paid out in "consulting fees".  No shock that the consulting firms getting paid are owned by the same people who set up the Super Pac in the first place.  In turn, they set Carson up with cushy spots on the boards of their other companies.  Everybody goes home happy...except the suckers who donated.

Clinton is a standard issue politician.  She's no more or less dishonest or manipulative than anyone else in Washington.

Cruz is an irredeemably awful human being.  Even the people voting for him don't like him.  When Trump called him a pussy everyone's reaction was "You can't say that!"  Not one person anywhere stepped up to dispute Trump's conclusion.  They just took issue with how bluntly he said it.  Besides, he's not actually eligible to be president since he is not a natural born citizen.

Rubio is a lightweight who only looks like a middleweight because the Koch brothers are propping him up.

Trump is an unqualified blowhard with a temperament unsuited to the presidency.  He's got limited national appeal.  If he does get the GOP nomination, the Demo candidate will win in a historic landslide.

6 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2016-03-02 08:59:48)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Well the whole thing is a mess.  My number one enemy in this election.  I hate her.  She's basically a real-life version of the guy from House of Cards (who I also hate).  The House of Cards creator has already said that he based the wife on Hillary, and she's probably worse than Frank is.

Hillary has brought a lot of this on herself, but I suggest you check out this:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … in-08.html 

A friend of mine from college interned in D.C. while she was a senator, and what he said about how he treated her (he didn't work directly for her) seemed to jive with this article. I've known others who have met her during her senator days (including my grandmother, who almost fell into her) and I really don't think she's like Frank's wife (Claire?).  I get the Claire vibes from Megan Kelly, but I don't really know too much about Megan Kelly, so it's probably mostly just the hair.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Okay, I'm going down this rabbit hole. Get ready to welcome back the Informant of 2000!

Hillary - I can't believe that the democrats are willing to vote for someone who about to be indicted for breaching national security... not once. Not by mistake. But repeatedly, and as a policy. She (and her rapist husband) has shown no respect for our laws and no care for the men and women who serve this country. Everyone is just a pawn in the Clinton political game. I absolutely see Claire Underwood in her. I'm just not sure how they managed to get such a liberal actress to play a role that is so unforgivingly negative toward democrats.

Sanders - I have some friends who support him. These friends say that his socialism isn't the same as "socialism-socialism". I don't know what that means, but I've chosen to avoid asking. It's better for everyone involved if I just leave that one alone.

Cruz -  I have to disagree with pilight. The people who vote for Cruz don't do it while holding their noses. We actually respect the man. As someone who lives in Texas, this isn't the first time I've supported him and it hopefully won't be the last.
As for whether or not he is eligible to be President, the whole issue is a silly birther myth. He is an American citizen since birth, with an American citizen parent. He is as much a citizen as anyone born to members of the military overseas. If this were a real issue, Trump would have sued him over it a hundred times over by now.

Rubio - Honestly, I don't think it will be as hard to beat Hillary or Sanders as it was to take on Obama. Obama was more of a pop culture movement than a candidate to a lot of people. Democrat voter numbers are down in the primaries. There isn't a lot of excitement behind either candidate. So yeah, I think Rubio could beat Hillary, but I think a lot of people could.
Rubio had the benefit of being the golden child for a while now. He wasn't the establishment's first choice, but with some of those failing to make it this far, he has become their choice. He's just not doing very well, do I'm not sure how long that will last. I think that he would have to be dragged kicking and screaming from this campaign, which could end up hurting the chances of defeating Trump. Let's face it, Rubio and Cruz are splitting votes. If one of them were gone, none of those people are going to Trump, because the people who support them are looking for a serious candidate, not a fireworks show.
At this point, Rubio isn't going to become the leader. What he is hoping for now is a brokered convention, where he hopes that the establishment who adopted him in recent weeks will push him as the nominee. However, if the establishment is forced (and I mean *forced*) to admit that Cruz is the stronger candidate, a brokered convention might not get Rubio anywhere.

It's a mess. It could be cleaned up if some people were willing to put the country ahead of their egos, and realize that Trump would be a big orange disaster. But they won't. The top three will probably remain in the race until the end. We'll get a brokered convention. At that point, I guess we'll all be surprised to see who actually gets the nomination. No matter who it is, I don't think it will be hard to take on Hillary, especially if she is indicted in the middle of the campaign.


Carson... Right... Umm... I do agree with pilight there.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

There's not a chance that Clinton will be indicted.  If they had something they would have charged her by now.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I don't know that that's true. To go after someone on her level, they would need to have all of their ducks in a row before they did anything, or else Hillary could have a judge toss the case. I've heard that they are looking to do it. It would surprise me if they did, because politicians get away with all kinds of crap, but these are not small issues.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

Hillary has brought a lot of this on herself, but I suggest you check out this:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … in-08.html

Yeah, I can see that.  But it's hard to read anything these days without any spin.  I'd be more trusting of your friend's opinion than any article written around this time.

I have spoken first-hand with a secret service agent who worked in the Clinton White House, and he said she was very rude to the agents that were trying to protect her life.  I don't know if that's true, but the same guy said that wasn't the case with the Bushes.  Now that could be political, but I didn't sense that.

To me, Hillary seems like the ultimate politician.  Everything is done for a reason and done for an angle.  She's wanted to be president forever, and she stayed with Bill because she'd put so much work into him and needed to use his name to build her own political capital.  And she's somehow convinced the African American community to vote for her (even though she and her husband haven't done great in regards to racial issues) and she's convinced all feminists to vote for her just because she's a woman.  So it doesn't really matter what her policies are, what she believes in, or what she says.

And I think that's why Trump is getting so much support.  You have the ultimate Washington insider vs. the ultimate Washington outsider.  To me, they're equally slimy, and that's why it's a nightmare of a race.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump an "outsider"?  HA!  He was born into money and has had deep political connections his whole life.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Norman Lear probably put it best - in this election, Trump is America's middle finger.

Many of the American people have felt beaten down and powerless for a long time; even when they vote for change and win, nothing really changes (or if it does, it just gets worse).  After accepting there's nothing that can really be done about the situation, how do people show their frustration?  They give the middle finger (and in this case vote Trump).  it seems to be working too; from their bewilderment to their anger, the pros are reacting in many ways like someone just flipped them off.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Trump an "outsider"?  HA!  He was born into money and has had deep political connections his whole life.

It isn't the truth, but it's definitely the message that's gotten across.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

Norman Lear probably put it best - in this election, Trump is America's middle finger.

Many of the American people have felt beaten down and powerless for a long time; even when they vote for change and win, nothing really changes (or if it does, it just gets worse).  After accepting there's nothing that can really be done about the situation, how do people show their frustration?  They give the middle finger (and in this case vote Trump).  it seems to be working too; from their bewilderment to their anger, the pros are reacting in many ways like someone just flipped them off.

Well, I think it's the response to stuff like "Black Lives Matter", #OscarsSoWhite, etc.  I think the majority of white America has been afraid to speak on certain issues because white people generally aren't allowed to speak on certain topics without being declared racist.  And even when white people speak up, no matter what they say, the words they use have to be chosen carefully.  It happens in academia, but it also happens in our nerdy neck of the woods with stuff like race-swapping in comic book movies.

And so I think certain groups of white people in this country see Donald Trump speaking his mind, and they are drawn to it.  Here's a guy who isn't afraid to speak his mind, no matter the backlash.  He isn't choosing his words carefully - he's just speaking.  And it's just something that I'm sure is very refreshing.

The fact that a lot of what he has to say is hate-filled, racist, or downright crazy either doesn't matter or actually helps his case.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

"This really gets my goat—  now the Mexican government is complaining about all the Americans who are moving across the border illegally to live in Mexico. Please. If these people just care about getting a better job and a higher standard of living, good riddance to them."

slidecage.com
Twitter @slidersfanblog
Instagram slidersfanblog

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Mitt Romney's speech in Utah was an earnest, heartfelt, avuncular, funny, well-worded and warm performance -- a stark contrast to the misfiring, malfunctioning cardboard robot who ran in the last election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iefXdC794I


It's a weird time when John Oliver and Mitt Romney are of largely the same mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Romney refused to actually challenge Obama in the last election. He failed to call him out on any of his crap or failed policies. So seeing him suddenly taking swings at someone (especially in his own party... officially) seems false. Some think that he wants the nomination at a brokered convention. If that's true, I think it's laughable. Not only has he completely sat out this race, but he was such a failure last time, i don't see why anyone would support him again.

I strongly dislike Trump, don't get me wrong. I just find it odd that Romney is choosing now to show his fangs. He is largely to blame for Trump's popularity, along with McCain before him (McCain didn't want to win. He just thought it was his turn to run). People like them are why people dislike the establishment Republicans so much.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I watched the entire debate last night.  And I don't think any of the Republicans can/will stand up to Trump.  It's almost like they're so flabbergasted that he's still in the race that they don't know what to do.  When he insults Rubio, Rubio looks to the moderator like he's broken a rule and should be disqualified. 

And what's weird is that it's a strategy that works.  Trump says a lot of things that sound good (clearly not his racist stuff....don't even start there), but anything that is fact-checked seems to be wrong (best example from last night is the Trump University BBB rating).  And the guy is constantly changing his opinion on things. 

The problem is that the average voter isn't going to fact-check or compare with previous statements.  They hear that Trump is going to be good for business based on previous businesses, and it sounds great.  Good for business is good.  Then Trump stoops to the lowest common denominator and insults the other candidates....who either look weak or defensive when he does it....and he looks strong.  You start seeing him standing up to Kim Jong Un, and you think it could all work out.

Funny thing is that I don't think Hillary would respond much better to it.  I think she'd try to look offended or laugh off him as a mockery, but that strategy doesn't seem to work.  And if she doesn't stand up to him, she's going to look weak.  And I just don't think any of these politicians have ever debated with a clown like Trump, and I think it throws them off their game.  All three candidates last night went after Trump, and he came out unscathed.  I don't know how that's possible, but the big story at the end of the night was the size of Trump's junk.

Right now, Hillary is polling better than Trump in a head to head, but I don't think Hillary is going to get much more support.  But what happens when Trump starts tearing at Hillary in whatever cuthroat way he wants?  Even if the story is BS, will Trump be able to use the email scandal to convince the country that Hillary is soft on national security?  Will he be able to get *any* minority support?  Will the minorities that showed up in record numbers to vote Obama be there for Hillary, or will Trump be able to prove that the Clintons were bad for blacks?

It'll be interesting.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

And one more thing that I wanted to keep separate....


....what if Hillary is indicted?  It's hard to find a trustworthy source (non-partisan) reporting on the issue, but what happens if Hillary is the clear choice but is indicted?  Does she drop out?  Fight through it?  Can the Democrats put their support behind someone indicted by the federal government?  Even if there's reason to indict or convene a grand jury, does Obama's Justice Department go after the lead candidate for his party's nomination?  If Hillary drops out, does Sanders get the nomination or does someone else step up?  Is Joe Biden out of the running?

What if the race is Biden-replacing-Hillary vs. Trump with no support from the Republicans vs. someone like Cruz as the Republican-supported candidate?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well, let's all look on the bright side -- we all have a common enemy and it's times like these that all sides need to set aside our differences and work together to prevent America from becoming another addition to the lengthy list of failed business ventures that Trump refers to as his life.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The problem is that the other candidates exist in a different world than Trump. They can't throw around petty insults the way he does, because people expect more of them. So if they just stand there, they look weak next to the schoolyard bully. If they try to hit back, they look petty. They get horrible press either way. And you're right, the voters aren't fact checking or even thinking about what Trump says. He has gone through how many debates without discussing any actual plans, aside from "It's going to be great!"? He is incredibly inconsistent, but none of his supporters are paying attention to that.

If it did come down to Trump vs. Hillary (and assuming that one of the others didn't run as a third party candidate), the debate would be much different. Clinton wouldn't have to defend herself, because the moderators would probably do that for her (as they have done with democratic candidates in the past). More than that, if Trump starts calling her names or demeaning her the way that he does the men on the stage now, the media would jump all over him for it in ways that they don't know. He would be sexist and disgusting, not just brash and embarrassing. The moderators would probably ask more questions about his insults than the fact that Hillary Clinton severely violated national security, on top of all of her other weaknesses and past crimes. Neither one of them would speak a word of truth about Planned Parenthood... it would be a cotton candy carnival act to watch them debate.

And to top it all off, Hillary could potentially be dragged off to prison in the middle of a debate!

Until she is convicted, she could theoretically stay in the race. How the democrats could have allowed themselves to be backed into this corner boggles the mind. If she drops out, it will have to be Biden or nobody... Biden! Or as I like to call him, "Drunk Uncle Biden". The man who literally told a paralyzed man to stand up and take a bow!

Sanders doesn't want to be President. If he did, he'd be calling Hillary on her s--t by now. So I think the democrats are screwed no matter what happens in this cycle. If Hillary is on stage with Trump, he will ignore whatever topics they're supposed to be discussing and he will relentlessly attack her. The media will go after him for it, but his comments will be out there and people will associate her with whatever he says. If she is forced to go and debate Cruz, he has years of practice in courtrooms to use these facts against her. It could almost be worse than Trump, because people take Cruz seriously.

Regardless, unless Romney or McCain end up in the mix again somehow, Hillary Clinton will be called out for the crimes that she has committed.

The democrats must have had better candidates. The problem is that the party establishments usually play this like a game of "who's turn is it" instead of which candidate is the most viable. That's what lost the republicans the last two elections, and what will lose the democrats this one. After Obama, they needed someone who could hit this out of the park, but they won't get it.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I've reviewed the Hillary E-mail stuff to the best of my ability -- I don't believe there is any route towards indictment or prosecution because it would be incredibly convoluted and difficult to present anything she's done with regards to the E-mails as a violation of criminal statutes relating to classified information, especially if the information was only made classified in retrospect. Not saying Hillary Clinton can't be taken down, but this doesn't look like the route to doing it.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I don't think that the Republicans can necessarily drive the indictment of Hillary. I just think that it is a very real problem for her. Over a thousand emails violated the law, and some of the documents had their top secret headers stripped by Hillary's office.
I think this would be a serious issue for her whether she was running for President or not. She just seems to believe that she is above having to take it seriously. She has done herself no favors by failing to at least pretend to care. (I do suspect that her brain injury a few years back was worse than they reported. Some of her behavior has reminded me of my father, who suffered a major stroke. For example, bursting into laughter at entirely inappropriate moments, failing to understand the context or severity of what people are saying to her)

In other news, Cruz seems to be dominating today's primaries so far. Interesting. He could overtake Trump.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I haven't done enough research, but didn't Petraeus plead guilty to similar charges?  I think he only got a fine and probation, but I wonder if a similar conviction would affect Hillary?

And I think Trump vs. Hillary wouldn't go the way you think, Informant.  I think she'd have to stand up to him and look "masculine" so as not to look too weak.  I think she'd react in the same way that the male Republicans are reacting, and I think it'd work the same way it's working for them.  I do think you're right that he'd accuse her of stuff, factual or not, and people would believe it.  And even if the indictment stuff goes nowhere, I think he'd hammer her on it, and I think it'd be tough for her to discuss it without looking more guilty.

It's just going to be ugly no matter what.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Voting for Trump because you're concerned about integrity and operating within the law is an unimaginable level of cognitive dissonance.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

From what I hear, one of Hillary's staff members was just given immunity. They don't usually do that unless there is something to be immune from, and unless there are bigger fish to fry.

It should be interesting to see Hillary defend herself, no matter who she is going up against. Up to this point, she really hasn't had to respond to anything like that in her campaign, and simply laughing about it will not help her this time.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

From what I hear, one of Hillary's staff members was just given immunity. They don't usually do that unless there is something to be immune from, and unless there are bigger fish to fry.

Well, it depends on what side of the aisle you're reading.  Democrats are saying that it's procedural - that the staffer wasn't going to participate in the Republican-run witch hunt, and that by taking immunity from the FBI, he can cooperate (because Hillary wants him to testify to put the thing to rest) and clear Hillary's name.

The Republicans agree with you - he's taking immunity to rat on Hillary - that he's been quiet so as not to incriminate himself, and now that he's not going to, he's going to spill all the beans and Hillary will go down.  That Hillary is publicly saying that she wants him to testify but that she's secretly worried that this is the magic bullet that takes her down.

I've read "legal experts" on both sides saying the opposite thing.  So until the indictment either happens or doesn't happen, we'll just have to wait and see.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Ah. Another vast right-wing conspiracy.

How did we end up with the Clintons again? We got rid of Bill and his drama, and now we're looking at potentially having them back in the White House again. She's not even there yet and we're already dealing with this crap.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well, the Clintons are back because "it's women's feminist duty to vote for her" (because feminism is about forcing women to do something because other women tell them to) and because she's extremely popular with black people (even though her husband was responsible for a ton of policies that were horrible for the black community).

Now in both of those instances, I think the Republican party is doing themselves no favors.  Women vote democrat because of conservative stances on a woman's right to choose, and black people vote democrat because conservative stances on social/racial issues.  It's no surprise that the two biggest rivals to Trump are named "Rubio" and "Cruz" - the Republican party knows that it can't just throw out another old white guy again.  Trump's white supremacy rhetoric doesn't really help with that image.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well, over the past two hours I have received six robo calls from Ted Cruz; I'm still getting them even after 9pm.  For pestering me so fully at home during a rare time to relax, there is no way in hell I will ever vote for Ted Cruz for anything.  One call would be more than enough; even the Asian guy from "Microsoft" trying to scam his way into my computer only calls once a week!

I have received no robo call from any other candidate.  Only Ted.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

My brother has the funniest stories about the fake Microsoft calls. Whenever the guy calls, my brother likes to mess with them. He'll either pretend to have no idea what a computer is, or he will turn the tables and tell the guy on the phone that there is actually something wrong with *his* computer.

It's nice to have fun if you can spare the time.

And on that note... Vote for Cruz! Because a vote for anyone else is a vote for Trump.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I watched most of the Univision debate with Hillary and Sanders.  I still just cannot trust anything that Hillary says.  And I think it's just because she's such a politician.  Every one of her answers is just a segue-way to talking points.  She never answers a question directly.  She also tried attacking Sanders' prior voting history, but I think Bernie has had a pretty good response for most of her attacks.  Hillary seems to flounder a bit when she's attacked.  Which is probably fine because she knows that the superdelegates are going to make any of these races obsolete.  But it seemed to me that the crowd was much more enthusiastic about Bernie than Hillary.

I really think if Bernie's campaign had done more sooner, he'd be the nominee.  It seems like the more he's out there, the more support he gets.  I just think it's too little too late, especially with the way the Democratic primaries work.  And Clinton is way too much of an establishment figure - she'd keep those superdelegates even if she murdered someone on live television.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Hillary is weird. Her voice and accent change, depending on her audience. If she is speaking to a black audience, she suddenly starts to sound like a southern preacher.

I agree with you about the talking points. And she has had a few moments where she seemed a little out of it, because she went to the wrong talking point. Like being asked about the economy and going to the 9/11 talking point. I really don't think she's all there.

I know a lot of people who seem to support Sanders on Facebook. I personally could never remotely consider voting for him, but some people seem to like him. I just don't think he ever wanted to win. It's not like there is nothing to take Hillary down with, but he never goes for it. He essentially said that he didn't care about emails or Benghazi. So if he has no objection to Hillary, why would people vote for him?

Also "Feel The Bern" is a horrible slogan. It sounds like he is going to give everyone who votes for him an STD.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

It's not like there is nothing to take Hillary down with, but he never goes for it. He essentially said that he didn't care about emails or Benghazi. So if he has no objection to Hillary, why would people vote for him?

He was more aggressive last night.  The moderators were actually really good/strong and hammered both candidates on a ton of volatile subjects.  I was really proud of them, actually.  They point-blank asked both candidates if they thought Trump was a racist.  Brought up quotes/videos from both candidates' pasts and asked if they flip-flopped.  Directly asked Hillary about the emails and Benghazi. 

And Sanders did push some buttons, and it did upset Hillary.  The problem for Hillary is that she's almost-certainly going to win, and she definitely wants to move on to face Trump.  But the longer things go on and the more she has to debate, the more ammunition she's going to give Trump.  And like I said before, I don't think it's going to matter whether or not the emails are a big deal or if Benghazi was her fault.  Trump's going to say it, and people aren't going to fact-check.  Now there are certain people that aren't going to vote for Trump for any reason, but if there are undecideds, Trump might be able to sway them.  And the more she has to fight with Bernie, the more she's exposing herself in a fight with Trump.

Sanders said that he doesn't care about the emails or Benghazi, but he's spinning it in a way that "it's important, but X,Y,Z are more important."  And I think he does want to bring it up, but I'm guessing the party doesn't want him to.  For the reasons I just said - whether or not there's fire, Trump will make some people believe there's a firestorm.

The more I see of Bernie, the more I like him.  And, honestly, one reason I like him is his age.  The guy's not going to run in 2020, and I think both parties could be given time to think "Holy shit, we were this close to a Trump or Hillary presidency.  We have to do better."  Because this is Trump's only chance.  This is Hillary's last chance.  Rubio's probably done.  Jeb is probably done.  Biden will be done.  I imagine Romney would be done if he doesn't make a final push.  We're going to have all-new candidates in 2020, and maybe there will actually be one we LIKE.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

So wait a minute - Ted Cruz is Pentecostal?  I remember all the grief Romney got for being Mormon; and from my own experience, Pentecostals aren't that far off on the odd scale.  I find it interesting how quiet they kept this on Cruz but blasted Romney's religion with great vigor.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

They ALL suck!  I like that Trump is willing to defy conventional thinking, but I also feel like he's lying non-stop.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I've heard a lot of people slam Cruz for being "evangelical", but I haven't really concerned myself with his religion too much.

Trump served a purpose at first. He kept some of the typical candidates from getting the nomination, as they always do. The last two republican nominees did horrible jobs and were pretty much given the nominations because they went with the flow. I saw Trump as a booster rocket early on... but he's failed to detach at this point and he really, really needs to go.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The more I hear Trump, the less he's saying.  He speaks for five minutes but says anything.  I actually think he'd try to surround himself with the best people, but I don't know if he'd listen to them if it's something he disagrees with.  All his racist stuff aside (and that's hard, there's a lot of it), there's a lot to worry about with a Trump presidency.  I thought Cruz did pretty well last night, but something about his face really bothers me (I know, not important - but still).

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump talks like a pro wrestler, it's hilarious.  Sadly people enjoy listening to carnival barking.  Ted Cruz has no shot either.  In the last debate, he lied through his teeth.  He doesn't remotely support the positions he glazed over.  It's just sad.  Kasich is the only grown up left, and gets no traction because he doesn't speak eloquently, and people gravitate towards personalities.  Trump ain't going nowhere, and the harder they gang up on him, the stronger he gets.  I simply don't understand how you can ignore his laundry list of shitty businesses, hypocrisy, and how he spent his entire career as Mitt Romney before suddenly becoming Pat Buchanon 5 years ago.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump has won a lot of states, but his delegate count isn't impressive. I don't think he will get the nom.

The question is, will it go to Cruz, or will they pull a new candidate out of their hat at the convention. If they try to go with someone new (like Romney), I don't think it would go over very well.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I've been hearing the comparisons between Trump and George Wallace today, so I decided to read a little into Wallace's background (someone I had heard of but didn't know many details).  I found something pretty startling.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_ … ential_run

When Wallace ran for President in 1968, he seriously considered naming (then alive) Col. Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken as his running mate.   Now *there's* a priceless Sliders alternate history; there was a true, albeit remote, possibility that Col. Sanders could have been President of the United States if Wallace had been elected and died in office.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Okay, we need to make a note of that for when we someday get the rights to publish Sliders novels.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Please call him President Colonel Sanders......please.  It's all I ask.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

"Mr President..."

"Please, call me Colonel"

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The Colonel in Chief!

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Starting to look like Trump has a clear path now.  I read an article that stated that his strongest quality is not the bad jokes, bombast, TV tough guy, or anything like that.  His policies are all over the map and change with the wind, so it's not those.  No, the #1 reason is that people have been conditioned to view Washington as totally dysfunctional, which by the way is not true.  They've been fed nonstop about how nothing gets done, even though it actually does, largely by the right.  And Trump has filled his gap because people actually view him as a guy that gets stuff done.  They have also ignored his numerous failures, or the fact that just because Trump's name is on something doesn't mean he's EVER lifted a finger to do anything.  He sells his name as a brand label, nothing more.  It's frankly scary how both ill informed AND outright lazy the American populace has become.  How difficult is it to do RESEARCH on the man you're blindly voting into office?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

It's mostly the Republicans who have pushed the dysfunctional government narrative, and they're often responsible for delaying and/or obstructing when it occurs.  Witness their unwillingness to even consider meeting the president's nominee for the supreme court.

The American populace has always been politically ill informed.  Nothing new about that.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well, I think it's a nightmare for the republicans because he either gets the nomination (and they have to back him) or they do some trickery and he sabotages them in some way (from slandering their guy to running as an independent).

But I've been doing some more research on him and general history, and it's both worse and not as bad as it seems.  A lot of his comments are scarier than you'd think.  Because I've read some articles that actually say that the US would be run better with a CEO-type than a politician, but Trump doesn't work like a real CEO.  He said recently that his greatest adviser is himself.  That's terrifying.  Because if a civilian who actually listened to his cabinet/advisers were elected, I think it could actually work. 

At the same time, I question how much actual damage would actually happen if he was elected.  I don't think the wall is plausible.  I don't think the American public is going to allow the type of mass-deportations that people are afraid of.   I don't think he'd get away with targeting terrorists' families.  But even if it's worst case scenario and Trump is Hitler 2.0, it took years for Hitler to start actually doing the type of "Hitler" stuff we associate with him.  And that was in a perfect situation where a guy like him would be allowed to rule (remember, it was the same time period where Americans kept electing the same guy).  With so much social media and cameras everywhere, I don't think holocaust-like stuff could be hidden.  And that's where we'd depend on our checks and balances (and if that fails, the rest of the world) to get him out of there.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I've read some articles that actually say that the US would be run better with a CEO-type than a politician

The government isn't a corporation and the president doesn't have the same powers as a CEO, so it wouldn't really work the way people think.

Jimmy Carter ran the White House the same way he ran his peanut farm.  It didn't work out well.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

A really good business man, I could see in office. If it were someone who knew what he was talking about on the issues, who had a talent for surrounding himself with great advisers and who knew how to be strong in diplomatic situations... sure, why not? I have a bigger problem with the idea of people who have been in Washington for 80 years.

But Trump isn't that type of person. He doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on much of anything. So in this particular situation, I think it would be a disaster.

That said, I don't think Trump's path is clear now. With Rubio dropping out and his team telling supporters to back Cruz, there could be a significant shift in support for Cruz, while I don't think that Trump will get many of the Rubio supporters. At the same time, the establishment lost their only horse left in the race. After trying and failing to make Cruz kiss their ring (not literally), they have the choice to either back him or back Trump. Now we're seeing much more support from the establishment republicans who don't want Cruz in office, but who see him as the lesser of two evils.

Obviously, we will have to wait and see how much of a bump Cruz gets from this point on. However, I think Trump has a much lower chance of getting all of the votes needed to take the nomination outright. Which will lead to a brokered convention. That's when things could get sloppy. If the republicans named someone like Romney or Ryan at the convention, I think hell would break loose. They might do that, and try to force us to take our medicine (if forced to choose between Romney or Clinton, most would choose Romney, even if they had to close their eyes and pinch their nose to do it). It would be a slap in the face to the voters who have made it very clear that they don't want an establishment nominee this time around. The party needs to reevaluate where they stand as it is, but this would be fighting words.

I think that Trump would throw a fit if the nomination went to Cruz at a brokered convention, but I don't think it would cause the same reaction as choosing someone who hasn't even been in the race. Cruz has been doing respectably well in the primaries, and when you factor in the votes that have gone to people who aren't even in the running anymore, I think that a good case could be made for him taking the nomination. It would be a lot harder for Trump's supporters to riot at a Cruz nomination.

So, I don't think Trump's way is clear yet. I think we will have to see where the Rubio supporters go from here.


As for the republicans not humoring Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice... I don't think it's unusual or unexpected. There was just a line in an episode of House of Cards about voting in a Justice during an election, as though it was unthinkable. And that would have been filmed long before it was a real life issue this year.