Donald Trump for president?

[NotPortlyNJ]

  jsgolfer said:

I voted no, no matter how much of a nut job I think he is. Maybe they should until he's out of the Presidential Race and he shouldn't be around long. His statements are misguided and idiotic but last I checked this isn't the United States of the Thought Police. I know many people who share his views as well as many like me who think he is certifiably crazy but last I checked this isn't against the law, at least not yet.

This is not a government thought police issue.  The fact of the matter is racist speech is rightfully frowned upon by the public in the USA.  While he can't, and shouldn't, face legal consequences for it, the first amendment does NOT protect you from financial retributions of what you say, particularly in the private sector.  When you are a public persona and a company with which you do business feels that you are damaging their reputation by what you say, and fear that their bottom line may be affected, it's the company's fiduciary responsibility to either get you to tone it down or sever the relationship.

[David in FL]

  danL said:

You don't know much about economics...

I've never been given a job by a poor person....

[Mulligan Jeff]

While watching CNN last night Anderson Cooper interviewed Trump about allegedly using illegal aliens within the Trump Enterprise. The Donald said he can't guarantee they're not being utilized for labor.

[rkim291968]

  Mr. Desmond said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

This just in.  DT is #1 at 17% among Republicans in North Carolina poll.

Since the Tea Party is about 30-35% of Pubs, Trump only has about 50% of the so-called Party of No.

I guess half of the fringe are xenophobic.

That's a lot considering there are dozen other candidates.   DT is getting free ad, exposure from the likes of CNN.    Negative exposure is better than none in DT's case.

Now a conspiracy theory developing is that DT is a DEM mole to ruin Republican chances at the White House.

[Chilli Dipper]

  rkim291968 said:

Now a conspiracy theory developing is that DT is a DEM mole to ruin Republican chances at the White House.   :roll:

A mole? No, but he is hurting the chances of other Republicans by his mere existence. He has name recognition and no integrity to maintain as a public figure; he's able to make outrageous statements no serious politician would say, because reality television stars are able to get away with such things without repercussions. The problem is that the news media and pollsters insist on treating him as a serious candidate, and his shameless pandering has struck a chord within parts of the Republican base who confuse his bloviating for saying what the mainstream is afraid to. No legitimate Republican candidate should pay attention to him, but here's the problem: Fox News is holding the first GOP debate next month, and they are only inviting the top ten candidates in national polls. Trump's candidacy is a sham, and doubt he even believes most of the words that come out of his big mouth these days, but he polls well. There are a dozen candidates lingering in the low single-digits who are desperate to take one of those few remaining podiums at the first debate, and the easiest way to jump a point or two is to be as depraved as Trump in these coming weeks. Once at the debate, everyone else will be forced to confront him; the RNC has said they'd bar anyone who participates in a non-RNC-sanctioned debate from appearing at subsequent debates, so they can't just refuse to share a stage with him.

[Mr. Desmond]

Jeb Bush is starting to sound like DT but in a low key way as to American workers, whose productivity is sky high and who earnings are sky low.

Somehow, I'd rather have DT than Bush.

Talk about entertainment!

But in Presidential elections, the Dems have a huge demographic advantage, so if voter ID doesn't work for the GOP in 2016, nothing will unless they go moderate.

[rkim291968]

  Mr. Desmond said:

Talk about entertainment!

Thanks goodness for that.  Caught some of Hilary interview with CNN last night and I couldn't stand it.  Her answers made DT's answers (some, not all.  well, a few, very few) refreshing.  Not entertaining at all and not what I expect from CNN these days .

[RandallT]

  rkim291968 said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Talk about entertainment!

Thanks goodness for that.  Caught some of Hilary interview with CNN last night and I couldn't stand it.  Her answers made DT's answers (some, not all.  well, a few, very few) refreshing.  Not entertaining at all and not what I expect from CNN these days .

I think The Donald is making all the other candidates look dreary and stilted. Hillary, perhaps most so.

He also highlights how boring and shallow the Democratic backbench is. Who are the future leaders of the Democratic party? Who are the future presidents/vice presidents?

Hillary (old, white, cautious, yesterday's news, whiny, and not a bold thinker).

Bernie (old, white, socialist, fairly boring).

Uncle Joe (old, white, yesterday's news, but perhaps the most agile thinker of the bunch. How lame is that? Entertaining and personable anyway).

Webb? Cuomo? O'Malley? McAuliffe? Kamala Harris?

Mayors? DAs around the country? Past administration members? Kerry/Holder/Sebelius?

I know, Al Sharpton!

I don't see any fresh Democrat leaders in Congress, because Reid and Pelosi might've held on to their positions too long. They seem to have not groomed anyone. Obama may have sucked the oxygen out of their leadership development, because it's all about him.

OT, I know, but I think @Mr. Desmond 's point about demographics meaning the Dems will win the presidency can only go so far. They still need to field a somewhat viable candidate. Not clear any of these are going to excite anyone or give people a reason to get off their butts to vote.

In the Obama years, the down and out Repub's have somewhat quietly taken over the House, the Senate, and hold a vast majority of governorships and both legislatures of many statehouses. Those are the grooming areas for future leaders.

That doesn't seem like an overwhelming demographic slam dunk for Dems, if you ask me. Sure, the Dems control the big cities in huge numbers so can take electoral wins more easily, but at some point our city failures will make people think "hmmm, our cities suck, California has been over-regulated into the ground, and we want to elect these dopes to run our country?"   I think the power of Obama's persona had a lot to do with his winning, not necessarily demographics. Time will tell.

Even a joke like The Donald could win, if they don't get some excitement going in their candidate. God help us all.

[inthehole]

  Gunther said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Since the Tea Party is about 30-35% of Pubs, Trump only has about 50% of the so-called Party of No.

I guess half of the fringe are xenophobic.

If the Pubs had passed the Immigration Bill, they would not have to deal with being Trumped.

They did, in 1986.

bang

[Mr. Desmond]

  inthehole said:

bang

another right wing dud.

Guess we don't have an immigration problem then...

The House had a bipartisan bill and went cowardly on us.

Why?

Because it might give Obama some type of victory lap when everyone could have shared in the credit. Such narrow thinking screws us as a Country.

I can only imagine what would happened if the Donald took over. You think Obama overreached with Executive Orders? Wait until The Donald issues Executive Orders.

Executive Order 1 ... "Congress, you're fired."

[David in FL]

  Mr. Desmond said:

Executive Order 1 ... "Congress, you're fired."

That's one that I'd support!

[rkim291968]

  David in FL said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Executive Order 1 ... "Congress, you're fired."

That's one that I'd support!

Me, too!   Out with polarization, in with collaboration.

Other likely executive orders:

• Bomb Iraqi oil fields that are in Isis control.  Ditto for Syria ones.
• Build a border wall between Mexico and US.  It must be visible from space.

[Mr. Desmond]

  rkim291968 said:

Me, too!   Out with polarization, in with collaboration.

Other likely executive orders:

Bomb Iraqi oil fields that are in Isis control.  Ditto for Syria ones.

Build a border wall between Mexico and US.  It must be visible from space.

If the Donald really wants to solve the immigration problem, you agree with Mexico to build factories all along their side of the border with special incentives for American Companies and Mexico give special trade incentive to their Companies as to employment of its citizens -- the way you deal with immigration is to give hope to people in their own Country and employ them.

Basically, you build a Factory DMZ or DIZ (de immigration zone) and you have US and Mexico police in a strategic partnership as well as government incentives.

[Gunther]

  Mr. Desmond said:

another right wing dud. Guess we don't have an immigration problem then... The House had a bipartisan bill and went cowardly on us. Why? Because it might give Obama some type of victory lap when everyone could have shared in the credit. Such narrow thinking screws us as a Country. I can only imagine what would happened if the Donald took over. You think Obama overreached with Executive Orders? Wait until The Donald issues Executive Orders. Executive Order 1 ... "Congress, you're fired."

Does Valerie Jarrett send you the dem's talking points each morning? Everything you write is straight out of left wing media.

[mmoan2]

Had to laugh in the car today listening to Anderson Cooper interview Trump, who said he would "Bomb the hell" out of ISIS-controlled oil fields in Iraq and then hire Exxon and Shell to rebuild them. He said he would "put a ring" of U.S. ground troops around the oil fields as the companies rebuilt the refineries. An ex-general came on after Trump and said "We have a saying in the military - you can't succeed in a 50 caliber world when your Commander-in-Chief has a 22 caliber brain." Quality entertainment for sure.

[rkim291968]

  mmoan2 said:

Had to laugh in the car today listening to Anderson Cooper interview Trump, who said he would "Bomb the hell" out of ISIS-controlled oil fields in Iraq and then hire Exxon and Shell to rebuild them. He said he would "put a ring" of U.S. ground troops around the oil fields as the companies rebuilt the refineries. An ex-general came on after Trump and said "We have a saying in the military - you can't succeed in a 50 caliber world when your Commander-in-Chief has a 22 caliber brain." Quality entertainment for sure.

DT also said that Exxon & Shell will rebuild those "so fast."   As I recall, it took decade to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure after the war.   DT must have a magic wand or something.  Put a ring idea was a blatantly ignorant comment.   It's like putting a target sign on our troops neck to invite all the suicide bombers.    However, I agree that we need to hurt ISIS in their pocket somehow.

[Chilli Dipper]

  RandallT said:

I think The Donald is making all the other candidates look dreary and stilted. Hillary, perhaps most so.

He also highlights how boring and shallow the Democratic backbench is. Who are the future leaders of the Democratic party? Who are the future presidents/vice presidents?

Hillary (old, white, cautious, yesterday's news, whiny, and not a bold thinker).

Bernie (old, white, socialist, fairly boring).

Uncle Joe (old, white, yesterday's news, but perhaps the most agile thinker of the bunch. How lame is that? Entertaining and personable anyway).

Webb? Cuomo? O'Malley? McAuliffe? Kamala Harris?

Mayors? DAs around the country? Past administration members? Kerry/Holder/Sebelius?

I know, Al Sharpton!

I don't see any fresh Democrat leaders in Congress, because Reid and Pelosi might've held on to their positions too long. They seem to have not groomed anyone. Obama may have sucked the oxygen out of their leadership development, because it's all about him.

OT, I know, but I think @Mr. Desmond 's point about demographics meaning the Dems will win the presidency can only go so far. They still need to field a somewhat viable candidate. Not clear any of these are going to excite anyone or give people a reason to get off their butts to vote.

In the Obama years, the down and out Repub's have somewhat quietly taken over the House, the Senate, and hold a vast majority of governorships and both legislatures of many statehouses. Those are the grooming areas for future leaders.

That doesn't seem like an overwhelming demographic slam dunk for Dems, if you ask me. Sure, the Dems control the big cities in huge numbers so can take electoral wins more easily, but at some point our city failures will make people think "hmmm, our cities suck, California has been over-regulated into the ground, and we want to elect these dopes to run our country?"   I think the power of Obama's persona had a lot to do with his winning, not necessarily demographics. Time will tell.

Even a joke like The Donald could win, if they don't get some excitement going in their candidate. God help us all.

For all the demographic advantages Democrats have, they need to find a way to close the enthusiasm gap that has seen them beaten in the last two mid-term elections. Last year in particular, the polls showed the Dems would not have lost the seats in the Senate they did, or the governors in the states they lost, had they been able to increase voter turnout at all. The small field of candidates for the Democratic nomination reflects that lack of enthusiasm among even prominent mainstream Democratic politicians; no one with the potential to make a tough fight against Hillary Clinton was willing to take it on, and the result is a slate of challengers that includes a centrist governor who doesn't move the needle, two ex-Republicans who only changed their party affiliation in the last decade, and one who is not registered as a Democrat at all. Notice that all the non-Hillary candidates are men: there are several female Democratic senators who I feel are presidential material that declined to make a run.

That's not to say that nobody is going to come out to vote for Hillary next November. In fact, I think the opposite is true, which contributed to the sense of inevitability the nominating process before Sanders starting getting momentum on the left. The negativity over the prospect of a Clinton presidency isn't coming from Democrats, or even independents; it's all coming from Republicans, or people who would only vote Republican anyway. Most anti-Hillary chatter is just noise.

[Chilli Dipper]

  rkim291968 said:

DT also said that Exxon & Shell will rebuild those "so fast."   As I recall, it took decade to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure after the war.   DT must have a magic wand or something.

Not to mention how Shell has done such a great job establishing drilling operations in the Arctic in a timely and efficient fashion.