Donald Trump for president?

[rkim291968]

For those who don't know who he is, here's an interesting candidate profile: http://www.theonion.com/graphic/candidate-profile-donald-trump-50675

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfreuter415

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I can't see Trump winning the republican nomination so I see him having to run as an independent and have the same impact as Ross Perot did.

I agree with this assessment. IMHO, when Ross Perot ran, he took 18% of the votes, which did nothing but take votes away from George H.W. Bush. Inevitably, Perot, and perhaps Bush's loyalty to Dan 'Potatoe' Quayle, cost the Republican Party the Presidency in 1992.

I didn't follow the election in 1992 beyond knowing the big three names (I was in 4th grade at the time), so I'm asking this out of genuine ignorance. Do we actually know that the Perot voters would have voted for Bush if forced to choose between him and Clinton (or Bush, Clinton, and staying home)? I ask because most of the people I know who wasted their vote on Nader in 2000 have said that they would have chosen Bush over Gore if they were forced to pick between those two (and I think most of those would have stayed home if it were one of those two or staying home)

I also seem to think Perot had a message of some sort in the election, which I can't see Trump having.

Fun story: I was less than 18 months old for the 1984 Presidential Election, and I got almost as many electoral votes as Walter Mondale.

My recollection (I was older than you were, and still am) was what defreuter415 stated.   Perot took enough votes to ruin the Republican's chance at the presidency.   Compare to that, Nader's influence on the election result was much smaller.

Fun story 2: I think I was richer than DT at 4 different times.

[Mr. Desmond]

I'd give him a chance. Probably wouldn't vote for him in the primary but if he made it through, I'd happily place my vote (unlike my abstention of McCain in '08). He'd get shit done, no question. And China and the Middle East would fear him. Would be good for the country

I think shit is the operative word ...

[Chilli Dipper]

I heard that.   If it is true, it's pathetic.   Oh, wait.  Maybe, all the candidates do that.  Don't they?   I know in many places (different countries), people get paid to join/incite demonstration.  Political groups, parties pay them to make the situation (what they are demonstrating against) look worse than it is.   I even heard this (people getting paid to join) was the case with a recent US demonstrations against police shooting.   I don't know how valid the claim was.

Liberty University forced its student body to attend Ted Cruz's candidacy announcement under threat of fines.

[Gunther]

Gunther, you do know that DT filed for bankruptcy 4 times, right?    That's fine for an individual or a corporate but will be a disaster for US to go through.    BTW, even if he becomes a president, what he claims he will do are just talks - no realistic chance in hell to come true.  E.g,  building a wall between US & Mexico?  Does he know how long that border is?  Even the Great Wall of China was pretty ineffective preventing "barbarians" to invade China over and over again.   Also, Mexican gangs have learned to dig tunnels to smuggle drugs & people.   Is he going to build moats, too? There are other stupid things he uttered that clearly showed me he was either an idiot or crazy or both.

He's denied the bankruptcies vigorously but I don't know the truth. Yes, he's a bonehead in many ways but he loves this country, hates what it's gone through the past 7 years and unlike the politicians, he would make stuff happen. You know how bad Obama has f'd things up when im endorsing Donald Trump.

[jsgolfer]

Can't he afford better hair?

[Chilli Dipper]

He's denied the bankruptcies vigorously but I don't know the truth. Yes, he's a bonehead in many ways but he loves this country, hates what it's gone through the past 7 years and unlike the politicians, he would make stuff happen. You know how bad Obama has f'd things up when im endorsing Donald Trump.

Let me ask you this question: can you give me any moment in Donald Trump's professional life where he has acted without the primary motive of promoting himself? If you can give me a single example of Trump demonstrating a worldview that isn't all about him, maybe I can come to view this as something other than a publicity stunt. You think he would get things done? Do you really believe that, through all his bluster, he would ever have a constructive relationship with Congress? Heads of government in our allied countries? ISIS? The UN? Do you think that all of them are just going to submit to Trump's demands? Do you think Vladimir Putin's afraid of him?

[Mr. Desmond]

He's denied the bankruptcies vigorously but I don't know the truth. Yes, he's a bonehead in many ways but he loves this country, hates what it's gone through the past 7 years and unlike the politicians, he would make stuff happen.

You know how bad Obama has f'd things up when im endorsing Donald Trump.

Good grief.

Yep, economic recovery and doubling of the stock market is terrible.

People having healthcare ... terrible.

Not seeing more of our dead soldiers being mutilated ... terrible.

Yep, don't like the deficit, don't like the bureaucracy, don't like the constant logjam, don't like the demonization of any individual, don't like the fact that no one works to correct/amend  bad laws (see ACA); don't like the fact that we need a more efficient and simple tax code... lots not to like.

No simple answers -- and if you listen to Trump, it's simple. IT is NOT, so the Donald is out.

BUT do not put the last 7 years of issues entirely on Obama. Accountability is shared between he and Congress, and the current atmosphere of my way or the highway. It is as if discussing negotiation is like uttering a profanity.

___

Obama? Big disappointment, but since the GOP opposes everything he wants, except for Free Trade, the Congress has done nothing for 6 years. So as a country we are behind in terms of infrastructure, economic recovery and other economic issues.

Obama's biggest error? He is too aloof, sullen and stubborn, which are terrible traits for this situation.  When you take on this job, one of the duties is to slap backs, communicate, and negotiate. The GOP is also guilty of opposing everything ... so big issues are kicked down the road.

EVERYONE is responsible, but the public will not hold any office holder accountable.

That's all I will say.

___

See Thomas Friedman's recent piece in the NYT -- no body for President. An excerpt:

The defeat by House Democrats — with an assist from hard-right House Republicans and praise from Hillary Clinton — of President Obama’s sensible plan to expand Pacific free trade and pair it with worker and environmental protections was a bad sign that many more Democrats are now polarizing toward the populist left. Since the Republicans have already purged their moderates, this trend does not bode well for the country. It means that the hybrid/centrist blends that on many issues can create the most resilient solutions are “off the table.” As long as that’s the case, there is little chance you will pass on the American dream to your kids.

Thomas L. Friedman

Foreign affairs, globalization and technology.

Just go down the list. With interest rates this low, Washington should be borrowing billions to invest in infrastructure — roads, ports, airports and 21st-century connectivity and both medical and basic science research — to make us more productive and create jobs. And we should be pairing that with phased-in entitlement trims and means-testing to Social Security and Medicare to make sure that these safety nets, as well as discretionary spending on education and research, will be there for the next generation.

Given the knowledge age we are in, it is crazy that we are educating the world’s brightest kids in our colleges and then sending them home. We should be giving green cards to every high-I.Q. risk-taker who wants to work in America, as well as the energetic less-skilled immigrants. Yes, it must be done legally, with a plan and tight borders. We need a high wall — but with a very big gate. Look at how many start-ups today are led by recent immigrants.

[Elmer]

If Trump wins he will turn all our national parks into overpriced, over hyped Trump Golf courses!

[rkim291968]

Well said, @Mr Desmond.   Historians will judge how well Obama did.  One thing is clear, he hasn't helped bridge the political divides.  I think it got decidedly  worse in his terms.   Back to OT, a few like Gunther will support DT's presidency, very few IMO.    I think his candidacy will last a very short time once the publicity angle diminishes.

[mmoan2]

The result of Donald Trump winning the presidency!

[Chilli Dipper]

Well said, @Mr Desmond.   Historians will judge how well Obama did.  One thing is clear, he hasn't helped bridge the political divides.  I think it got decidedly  worse in his terms.

And that's a systemic problem within the current American political landscape; I don't believe things would be much different if anyone else occupied the White House since 2009. One thing's for sure, though: Donald Trump is pretty much the last person who would be capable of improving that climate.

[newtogolf]

I like Trump as a business person, but he's used to getting his own way and that temperament doesn't work well in politics.  As POTUS his decisions will be questioned and his ideas challenged daily, I don't think he'll handle it well.

[dfreuter415]

Historians will judge how well Obama did.  One thing is clear, he hasn't helped bridge the political divides.  I think it got decidedly  worse in his terms.

I believe your assessments are spot on.

I don't believe things would be much different if anyone else occupied the White House since 2009. One thing's for sure, though: Donald Trump is pretty much the last person who would be capable of improving that climate.

I agree with you on DT, but disagree with your assessment on the White House. In my lifetime our country has never been this polarized. I remember the days that Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill to get legislation that worked to get us out of a time where there was double digit inflation.. And the how about Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich working together to get balance budgets in the 1990's? Both sides are equally to blame for the current state of gridlock, because of their lack of willingness to compromise. To lay the blame on one side or the other simply shows the level of polarization we are experiencing.

[rkim291968]

... and Obama had Dem congress, and senate in 1st years of his presidency.   He had a blank check so to speak.  I had high hopes but he turned out to be less of a leader and more of a politician.   But, back to OT, DT has neither the leadership (he may, as a dictator) nor political savvy (he may, as a businessman).

[dfreuter415]

... and Obama had Dem congress, and senate in 1st years of his presidency.   He had a blank check so to speak.  I had high hopes but he turned out to be less of a leader and more of a politician.   But, back to OT, DT has neither the leadership (he may, as a dictator) nor political savvy (he may, as a businessman).

Spot on, once again.

[Mr. Desmond]

... and Obama had Dem congress, and senate in 1st years of his presidency.   He had a blank check so to speak.  I had high hopes but he turned out to be less of a leader and more of a politician.   But, back to OT, DT has neither the leadership (he may, as a dictator) nor political savvy (he may, as a businessman).

Well, not really as to having Congress or a blank check. You made a good effort but not spot on because he needed 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done, and he had to deal with a couple of BIG events that his predecessor could not ...

What did Obama have to deal with when he began the presidency?

No economy, no one spending, millions of unemployed, everyone in the dumper... and two freakin' wars.

How soon we forget.

So you had the stimulus, then he strategized that health care needed to be done in the first two years or never, and when he tried to go back for more stimulus, he got nada.

Now I do not think he handled it well, but to say he had a blank check and no opposition when you NEEDED 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything is to ignore reality.

What would the Donald have done?

"You're fired!"

Yep, that works.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

... and Obama had Dem congress, and senate in 1st years of his presidency.   He had a blank check so to speak.  I had high hopes but he turned out to be less of a leader and more of a politician.   But, back to OT, DT has neither the leadership (he may, as a dictator) nor political savvy (he may, as a businessman).

Well, not really as to having Congress or a blank check. You made a good effort but not spot on because he needed 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done, and he had to deal with a couple of BIG events that his predecessor could not ...

What did Obama have to deal with when he began the presidency?

No economy, no one spending, millions of unemployed, everyone in the dumper... and two freakin' wars.

How soon we forget.

So you had the stimulus, then he strategized that health care needed to be done in the first two years or never, and when he tried to go back for more stimulus, he got nada.

Now I do not think he handled it well, but to say he had a blank check and no opposition when you NEEDED 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything is to ignore reality.

What would the Donald have done?

"You're fired!"

Yep, that works.

Good point.

Let's see DT would have done .... I am too scared to think straight on that one.

[Chilli Dipper]

I agree with you on DT, but disagree with your assessment on the White House. In my lifetime our country has never been this polarized. I remember the days that Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill to get legislation that worked to get us out of a time where there was double digit inflation.. And the how about Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich working together to get balance budgets in the 1990's? Both sides are equally to blame for the current state of gridlock, because of their lack of willingness to compromise. To lay the blame on one side or the other simply shows the level of polarization we are experiencing.

By no means do I think Democrats are faultless for the current political climate, but I'm not ready to say that both sides are equally to blame. It took months for Loretta Lynch to get a confirmation vote in the Senate, despite Republicans having no substantive objection to her nomination for Attorney General, and despite the man she was tapped to replace being maybe the only person in America the GOP hates even more than Obama. The same Republican Congress tried to defund Homeland Security, just because they could; they'd give the department a blank check when Bush was in office, and they'd raise hell about the Democrats hating America if they ever tried the same stunt. I don't think there's been a moment in the last five years where Republicans at the Capitol have acted in good faith; quite frankly, I believe this would be a most fitting anthem for the party during the Obama administration. [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0[/VIDEO]