Donald Trump for president?

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Isn't it amazing that in a great country like ours we consistently come up with such poor candidates for president every 4 years? How is this possible? How sad!

I put it as the smart people tend to realize it's idiotic to run for president. Why would someone want to become the most powerful grade school principal trying to get congress to work together. 

[Pendragon]

Just now, saevel25 said:

I put it as the smart people tend to realize it's idiotic to run for president. Why would someone want to become the most powerful grade school principal trying to get congress to work together. 

By God, I think you've nailed it. LOL.

[nevets88]

Look at the before and after photos of Presidents pre-campaign and then when they leave office. It's Shangri-La in reverse. And I cannot think of a more gigantic microscope on you, your family and friends, when you're POTUS.

A little overview of the current situation:

 

[gregsandiego]

18 hours ago, WUTiger said:

Political commentator Peggy Noonan suggests that Trump's appeal is that he represents the unprotected - those who suffer due to decisions of the political elites of both parties.

"There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy, the unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully."

An interesting article... The Rise of the Unprotected

Thoughts, anyone?

I saw the same article and thought it was a great piece by Noonan. I think she nails it when she makes these statements:

You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

I'm not sure I'd vote for Trump but I think he did the electorate a huge favor by taking out one of the anointed ones , aka Jeb!

I like Sanders for the same reason. Too bad hes' not being as successful. 

 

 

[Gunther]

22 minutes ago, gregsandiego said:

I saw the same article and thought it was a great piece by Noonan. I think she nails it when she makes these statements:

You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

I'm not sure I'd vote for Trump but I think he did the electorate a huge favor by taking out one of the anointed ones , aka Jeb!

I like Sanders for the same reason. Too bad hes' not being as successful. 

She is partially correct in terms of border control philosophies on both sides.  But those are only side factors.

The driving force for Dems position is that they know these illegals will become Dem voters over time.  Wedge issue is sort of a bonus for them but it's not what drives their position.  They think long term, similar to the Muslim extremists.  They have, since the early 60s, slowly pecked away at the fabric of this country through academia and mass media to the point where today an avowed Socialist is a viable candidate for President of the United States.  It's nuts and I hate it but it's genius as well.

The GOP, on the other hand, yes, are afraid of being labeled racist, etc.  Trump has hopefully shown them that fear can be conquered and that battle can be won against the media because the vast majority in this country do not trust the media.  But, the driving force behind the GOP's position is big money.  The Chamber of Commerce and the folks who support the individual Republican politicians have no concern with security or ultimately giving way to the Socialists.  They want, very simply, cheaper labor.  That's it.  So, our weak GOP "leaders" go along otherwise they'll lose their financial backing and be gone.

Neither of these positions are written of much because frankly, they're embarrassing to both sides.  But lots of folks are aware of it which really is what is keeping Trump on top and will sweep him into the White House.

[Lihu]

43 minutes ago, Gunther said:

The driving force for Dems position is that they know these illegals will become Dem voters over time.  Wedge issue is sort of a bonus for them but it's not what drives their position.  They think long term, similar to the Muslim extremists.  They have, since the early 60s, slowly pecked away at the fabric of this country through academia and mass media to the point where today an avowed Socialist is a viable candidate for President of the United States.  It's nuts and I hate it but it's genius as well.

There isn't an active conspiracy amongst educators and media to peck away at the fabric of this country.

Academics and media have always been that way. Academia all the way back to the time of Socrates or Confucius.

Media has also been more "liberal" leaning because they bring news to the people. The town criers during the witch hunts of 1600s might have been conservative, but other than that the role of news has always been less than conservative. It's the nature of reporting news to the masses.

[Dave2512]

More than any of that people are tired of the back and forth stagnation. Modern politics has become a game of creating roadblocks for the other guy. Then blame the other guy when nothing gets done. All to stay in office and retain voters.

[gregsandiego]

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

She is partially correct in terms of border control philosophies on both sides.  But those are only side factors.

The driving force for Dems position is that they know these illegals will become Dem voters over time.  Wedge issue is sort of a bonus for them but it's not what drives their position.  They think long term, similar to the Muslim extremists.  They have, since the early 60s, slowly pecked away at the fabric of this country through academia and mass media to the point where today an avowed Socialist is a viable candidate for President of the United States.  It's nuts and I hate it but it's genius as well.

The GOP, on the other hand, yes, are afraid of being labeled racist, etc.  Trump has hopefully shown them that fear can be conquered and that battle can be won against the media because the vast majority in this country do not trust the media.  But, the driving force behind the GOP's position is big money.  The Chamber of Commerce and the folks who support the individual Republican politicians have no concern with security or ultimately giving way to the Socialists.  They want, very simply, cheaper labor.  That's it.  So, our weak GOP "leaders" go along otherwise they'll lose their financial backing and be gone.

Neither of these positions are written of much because frankly, they're embarrassing to both sides.  But lots of folks are aware of it which really is what is keeping Trump on top and will sweep him into the White House.

Agreed.

But not so sure about your conclusion. We'll probably know on Tuesday if we have Trump vs Hillary. Real Clear Politics shows her winning that race right now.

That's going to be a fascinating contest to watch. I expect pretty heavy attacks coming from both sides.

 

[Dave2512]

Interesting in that the GOP doesn't fear a Clinton presidency as much as a Trump presidency because she is less likely to shake up the establishment. Her being elected keeps them in jobs. 

[Fourputt]

8 hours ago, Lihu said:

There isn't an active conspiracy amongst educators and media to peck away at the fabric of this country.

Academics and media have always been that way. Academia all the way back to the time of Socrates or Confucius.

Media has also been more "liberal" leaning because they bring news to the people. The town criers during the witch hunts of 1600s might have been conservative, but other than that the role of news has always been less than conservative. It's the nature of reporting news to the masses.

I'd disagree with this.  Historically, the function of the media, whether it was the town crier or newspapers and radio, was to report the facts of the story.  The editorial pages were the place where reporters could throw in their opinions.  Since the 1970's, the reportage has steadily become more liberal, with too much editorializing starting right on the front page.  It's become difficult for a free thinking individual to sort out the facts from the opinions, and to then remove the slant from the facts.  That's as true for the few conservative "news" sources as it is for the liberal ones.  

Talk to a liberal and they refuse to admit that there is any bias to CNN.  Talk to a right wing conservative and you get the same about Fox News.  The average Joe doesn't even seem to to try to find a middle ground, they just absorb whatever they see, regardless of how obvious or outrageous it might be.  That means that there are a lot of "informed" voters who are only parroting what they see and read, with very little idea of reality.  

This is how I see all of these young voters who are backing Sanders.  He spouts what they want to hear, and regardless of the impossibility of ever attaining it, they follow in droves, just like the Pied Piper.  I can see how the idea of free college would be attractive to someone who is accruing tens of thousands in student loans, but his Robin Hood plan will never fly.  I would agree that some rethinking is needed, because college has become prohibitively expensive (when I went to college in the 1960's, you could get a 4 year degree as a resident in a state university for less than $5000), but taking from the rich to subsidize the schools isn't the answer.  

[Lihu]

54 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I'd disagree with this.  Historically, the function of the media, whether it was the town crier or newspapers and radio, was to report the facts of the story.  The editorial pages were the place where reporters could throw in their opinions.  Since the 1970's, the reportage has steadily become more liberal, with too much editorializing starting right on the front page.  It's become difficult for a free thinking individual to sort out the facts from the opinions, and to then remove the slant from the facts.  That's as true for the few conservative "news" sources as it is for the liberal ones.  

Talk to a liberal and they refuse to admit that there is any bias to CNN.  Talk to a right wing conservative and you get the same about Fox News.  The average Joe doesn't even seem to to try to find a middle ground, they just absorb whatever they see, regardless of how obvious or outrageous it might be.  That means that there are a lot of "informed" voters who are only parroting what they see and read, with very little idea of reality.  

This is how I see all of these young voters who are backing Sanders.  He spouts what they want to hear, and regardless of the impossibility of ever attaining it, they follow in droves, just like the Pied Piper.  I can see how the idea of free college would be attractive to someone who is accruing tens of thousands in student loans, but his Robin Hood plan will never fly.  I would agree that some rethinking is needed, because college has become prohibitively expensive (when I went to college in the 1960's, you could get a 4 year degree as a resident in a state university for less than $5000), but taking from the rich to subsidize the schools isn't the answer.  

I wouldn't call it stealing from the rich so much as an irresponsible plan.

Yeah, free education will not work here. Usually, free educational programs are associated with heavy filtering where only the top students will have more education. This country was founded on equal opportunity for all, and we can't afford to pay for everyone to go to school.

[Dave2512]

We already pay for grades K-12. No reason a public college system couldn't work. Nobody has to be stolen from for that to happen. People vote in local tax increases to pay for friggin' fancy football stadiums. 

[saevel25]

55 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

We already pay for grades K-12. No reason a public college system couldn't work. Nobody has to be stolen from for that to happen. People vote in local tax increases to pay for friggin' fancy football stadiums. 

there is very legit question on the quality of that education. I rather see some comprehensive studies and changes on what should be taught at colleges. Like actual stuff you might need no matter what the job. Maybe required classes on personal finance, student loans, job searching, networking, ect...

Honestly I have an engineering degree. I only use half of what I learn in college. I could have turned this into a two-three degree and still be very competent as an engineer in my field. 

There is so much waste now. No need to throw money at it with out sitting down and fix the scam that a lot of people are getting called a college degree. 

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

there is very legit questions on the quality of that education. I rather see some comprehensive studies and changes on what should be taught at colleges. Like actual stuff you might need no matter what the job. Maybe required classes on personal finance, student loans, job searching, networking. 

Honestly I have an engineering degree. I only use half of what I learn in college. I could turn this into a two-three degree and still be very competent as an engineer. There is so much waste now. No need to throw money at it with out sitting down and fix the scam that a lot of people are getting called a college degree. 

Yeah, that's pretty much what I wanted to say.

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, Dave2512 said:

We already pay for grades K-12. No reason a public college system couldn't work. Nobody has to be stolen from for that to happen. People vote in local tax increases to pay for friggin' fancy football stadiums. 

I think many of you are forgetting that free college is already available, but you have to work at it and either be an outstanding student or athlete.

• If you do well academically in high school you can get into the better less expensive state schools or you earn scholarships to private schools.  
• If your family is near or below the poverty line there are numerous financial aid options to apply for.  
• If you're a top athlete you can earn a free ride to many schools.  
• If you aren't an athlete, scholar or from a poor family you can enroll in the military and earn your education.  

IMO free college for everyone is like participation trophies, it sends the wrong message and wastes taxpayers money.  Sorry but I don't want to pay higher taxes so a bunch of unmotivated, entitled kids can go hang out in college and party for 4 years without any consequences or payments.    

[Lilfrier]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

there is very legit question on the quality of that education. I rather see some comprehensive studies and changes on what should be taught at colleges. Like actual stuff you might need no matter what the job. Maybe required classes on personal finance, student loans, job searching, networking, ect...

Honestly I have an engineering degree. I only use half of what I learn in college. I could have turned this into a two-three degree and still be very competent as an engineer in my field. 

There is so much waste now. No need to throw money at it with out sitting down and fix the scam that a lot of people are getting called a college degree. 

We have a similar conclusion, but probably a different path there. I feel like I have gone through college in those general education classes.. I suppose a personal finance class WOULD be of more use to me than what I took, but I fear it would be dumbed-down to meet the needs of the worst students, and be useless to many as a result. My school already hosts many career fair and networking things outside of class, since you gave that example, and a class on student loans in college is kind of too late.

The root is that high school is such a waste. It panders to the least-capable too often. It does little to help guide you to a career or a college major. That's where you need things like a student loan education class, not college. They should have a college prep course that helps you look into scholarships and the like.

If you open the floodgates to college like that as well, then there's a severe risk that the college educational experience gets dumbed down to suit the low-end students coming in I actually experience that, in a way, in grad school. Computer Science is a field that's filled with Indian students coming into the school. I'm in 2 classes this semester, and in both cases, I'm the only white person. The rest (23 in one class, 47 in the other) are all Indian. I know some of the professors well and have known them for several years now. They tell me all the time how the school's system is, in many ways, built as a daycare for those foreign students.

It would also be nice to see a lot of the waste in college get tossed. A college education would be cheaper, and more meaningful, if the schools weren't employing so many instructors for ignorant degrees like Women and Gender Studies. There are quite a few programs that could be condensed to an elective class or two, and it would lower costs while leading students into degrees with more applicable skills.

[nevets88]

John Oliver on Drumpf

 

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, nevets88 said:

John Oliver on Drumpf

HAHA! That was one of the better ones Oliver has done.