Donald Trump for president?

[jbishop15]

As recently as 2004 though Republicans did still win 40% of the Hispanic vote. I think something like a Kasich/Rubio ticket could do as well (or even top that).  I think Kasich is probably the guy best positioned on the issues in the Republican field, but not sure yet if he's going to have the charisma to actually be a good candidate.  I would agree Trump's potential problems with both Women and Latinos might limit his general election upside, but don't underestimate the importance of charisma, either. Trump, even with his flaws, already looks like more of a threat to me than guys like Bush, Carson, or Cruz. It's really hard to predict what will happen on the Republican side though with so many candidates. But I think eventually the threat of a Trump win might cause some conservatives to get behind a more moderate conservative like Jeb, Kasich, Walker, or Rubio. The question is, will this happen soon enough to deny Trump a significant share of electors.

In 2004, the Republican Party wasn't this far right on immigration.

[acerimusdux]

In 2004, the Republican Party wasn't this far right on immigration.

They were at least as far right as Kasich or Rubio. I wouldn't assume Trump will ultimately have that much influence on the Republican platform.  It might even be that Trump's campaign only convinces more pragmatic Republicans that they need to have Rubio on the ticket.

If you look at recent swing state polls, Rubio actually looks like the best Republican candidate, beating Hillary pretty heavily in Florida (51-39, Quinnipiac), Pennsylvania (47-40, Quinnipiac), and Michigan (45-36, Mitchell research), and neck and neck in Ohio (42-40 Quinnipiac).

We shouldn't overlook either the possibility that some of the Democrats are too far left on immigration.

Quinnipiac poll

Mitchell/Fox2 Detroit poll

[Chilli Dipper]

They were at least as far right as Kasich or Rubio. I wouldn't assume Trump will ultimately have that much influence on the Republican platform.  It might even be that Trump's campaign only convinces more pragmatic Republicans that they need to have Rubio on the ticket. If you look at recent swing state polls, Rubio actually looks like the best Republican candidate, beating Hillary pretty heavily in Florida (51-39, Quinnipiac), Pennsylvania (47-40, Quinnipiac), and Michigan (45-36, Mitchell research), and neck and neck in Ohio (42-40 Quinnipiac).  We shouldn't overlook either the possibility that some of the Democrats are too far left on immigration. [URL=http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/ps08202015_Sdeg82k.pdf]Quinnipiac poll[/URL] [URL=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Mitchell_Poll_MI_Press_Release_8-20-15_Rubio_Prez_Final.pdf]Mitchell/Fox2 Detroit poll[/URL]

The GOP didn't make a hard right turn on immigration until 2006. There was a consensus among both parties toward comprehensive reform after the 2004 election; that's how George W. Bush won 44 percent of the Latino vote that year. While a bipartisan immigration bill was being drafted in the Senate, though, a bloc of House Republicans feeling left out of the process managed to force their own bill through the lower house. Among other things, the House bill would have made clergy and charity workers subject to felony charges for providing any form of aid to illegal immigrants. Massive protests by Hispanics and civil libertarian activists ensued, any hope for comprehensive reform vanished, and the whole episode galvanized the hardcore anti-immigration wing of the GOP into the party mainstream. Honestly, I'm about through with talking about Donald Trump. He's moved beyond being a mere distraction in the presidential race; he has become the closest thing to fascism the United States has ever seen. I don't mean that in the "let's call anyone we have political disagreements with a fascist" sense; I mean that in the "the strongman rhetoric, hostile nationalist economics, and massive authoritarian police state he proposes are all consistent to the tenets of fascism" sense. People supporting Donald Trump are agreeing to give up personal and economic liberties so that a billionaire can scapegoat a powerless minority as the root of all America's problems. Trump's platform is contrary to our ideals; shame on every one of his supporters for being duped by this charlatan. Trump constantly makes promises to "take our country back" on the campaign trail, but he won't be taking it back for any of us; he's taking it all for himself.

[Elmer]

Where's Obama's statement condemning illegal aliens who commit crimes, he refused to even acknowledge the woman who was murdered in San Francisco by an illegal alien who was deported twice.  Using your logic here, one could say he's inciting illegal aliens to commit crimes because he's not condemning their actions.  Why do the libs in CA continue to create sanctuary cities for criminals, are they inciting violence?  You're taking a single isolated incident and blaming it on Trump yet I don't see any posts from you blaming Sharpton for the attacks on police officers or whites?

I still wouldn't vote for Trump but the liberals must be getting nervous if they're resorting to this level of propaganda and now calling his use the term "anchor baby" as offensive.  Maybe instead they should create a gofundme account to keep Hillary out of jail.

Does POTUS really need to make a statement "condemning" people who commit crimes. Going by this logic shouldnt he be making statements "condemning" anyone from committing crimes?

Do we really need to have a statement from any POTUS telling us he thinks crimes are wrong?

[acerimusdux]

The GOP didn't make a hard right turn on immigration until 2006. There was a consensus among both parties toward comprehensive reform after the 2004 election; that's how George W. Bush won 44 percent of the Latino vote that year. While a bipartisan immigration bill was being drafted in the Senate, though, a bloc of House Republicans feeling left out of the process managed to force their own bill through the lower house. Among other things, the House bill would have made clergy and charity workers subject to felony charges for providing any form of aid to illegal immigrants. Massive protests by Hispanics and civil libertarian activists ensued, any hope for comprehensive reform vanished, and the whole episode galvanized the hardcore anti-immigration wing of the GOP into the party mainstream.

The GOP currently holds the House by a 246-188 margin. They don't need to compromise in the House. Republican voters must realize though that a national election is a different animal. And there were still efforts at a bipartisan bill as recently as 2013, which also mainly died in the House. Voters must also realize that massive House majority isn't likely to disappear, either.

So even the most moderate Republican president isn't going to get anything through congress that is too unpopular with their own party base.  For people who want tougher immigration laws, their best hope for any reform at all is any Republican who can actually win the presidency.

Honestly, I'm about through with talking about Donald Trump. He's moved beyond being a mere distraction in the presidential race; he has become the closest thing to fascism the United States has ever seen. I don't mean that in the "let's call anyone we have political disagreements with a fascist" sense; I mean that in the "the strongman rhetoric, hostile nationalist economics, and massive authoritarian police state he proposes are all consistent to the tenets of fascism" sense. People supporting Donald Trump are agreeing to give up personal and economic liberties so that a billionaire can scapegoat a powerless minority as the root of all America's problems. Trump's platform is contrary to our ideals; shame on every one of his supporters for being duped by this charlatan.

I just don't see where, in that sense, Trump is really any different from Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, or Mitt Romney.  I thought that kind of authoritarian nationalism was pretty much standard Republican fare. I'm not a big fan of it, but I think there are a lot of voters who will buy into the whole "Make America Great Again" theme. It's worked in the past.

[rkim291968]

It's really hard to predict what will happen on the Republican side though with so many candidates. But I think eventually the threat of a Trump win might cause some conservatives to get behind a more moderate conservative like Jeb, Kasich, Walker, or Rubio. The question is, will this happen soon enough to deny Trump a significant share of electors.

+1.   Trump is riding high on polls but as candidates drop out one by one, who are their supporters going to back?   Gap will close between Trump and the remaining candidates.   Can someone close the gap fast enough before the Trump propaganda machine & money win over the majority for good?   There is too much time left for that.

One wild card - If the current stock market set back continues into election time, Trump may get additional support from those (even from Dem side) who believe a businessman can do much better to shore up the stock market and improve economy.

I started the thread as tongue in cheek post, thinking Trump's candidacy is going to die of a quick death and some of us will have a few laughs at his expense.  But look where it is at now.    Very interesting indeed.

[Chilli Dipper]

The GOP currently holds the House by a 246-188 margin. They don't need to compromise in the House. Republican voters must realize though that a national election is a different animal. And there were still efforts at a bipartisan bill as recently as 2013, which also mainly died in the House. Voters must also realize that massive House majority isn't likely to disappear, either. So even the most moderate Republican president isn't going to get anything through congress that is too unpopular with their own party base.  For people who want tougher immigration laws, their best hope for any reform at all is any Republican who can actually win the presidency.

I'll admit that immigration is not very high on my list of important issues regarding whom I'd vote for president. Being "tough" on immigration, if it means building a wall and rounding up all the illegals, would not a compelling reason for me to vote for a candidate. That's prohibitively expensive, and it wouldn't work anyway. [quote name="acerimusdux" url="/t/82688/donald-trump-for-president/510#post_1189780"] I just don't see where, in that sense, Trump is really any different from Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, or Mitt Romney.  I thought that kind of authoritarian nationalism was pretty much standard Republican fare. I'm not a big fan of it, but I think there are a lot of voters who will buy into the whole "Make America Great Again" theme. It's worked in the past. [/quote] Every candidate promises to make America great again, but in Trump's case, there's no appeal to the individual. He's not talking about changing the tax code to relieve working families, or providing incentives for small business owners; it's about him taking jobs back from China and showing them who's the boss. For starters, the global economy doesn't work that way; this isn't the 1920s. Secondly, trade diplomacy is a game that requires tact and negotiation. The president of China didn't get to where through timidity; he's faced far more ruthless rivals than Donald Trump in the CPC; trying to instill fear in him is not going to have any effect other than make him angry. But really, any last drop of respect I had for Donald Trump went away a few days ago when he brought up Bowe Bergdahl in a speech. [video]http://youtu.be/b3ci0S0RjXw[/video] People have differing views of him, and I can understand that. But if you're running for President of the United States, you cannot glibly joke about how you'd approve of the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. That's so far beyond the pale, it's irredeemable.

[rkim291968]

People have differing views of him, and I can understand that. But if you're running for President of the United States, you cannot glibly joke about how you'd approve of the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. That's so far beyond the pale, it's irredeemable.

But amazingly, nothing seems to hurt his campaign.  All the stupid, unrealistic, hurtful things he said would have killed any candidate's chance at being nominated.   Not Trump.  In fact, McCain, Meygan comments either had no impact or boosted his poll numbers.    Are the Reps collectively that dumb to fall for Trump's narcissistic rants?   If they are, then, they deserve Trump.   But I believe there are enough smart Reps & their leaders to select someone other than Trump as their eventual nominee.

[dkolo]

But amazingly, nothing seems to hurt his campaign.  All the stupid, unrealistic, hurtful things he said would have killed any candidate's chance at being nominated.   Not Trump.  In fact, McCain, Meygan comments either had no impact or boosted his poll numbers.    Are the Reps collectively that dumb to fall for Trump's narcissistic rants?   If they are, then, they deserve Trump.   But I believe there are enough smart Reps & their leaders to select someone other than Trump as their eventual nominee.

It's too far out and people aren't taking the decision seriously yet, nor should they really. It's why Deez Nuts is polling so well. It's not a real decision for people yet so who cares? If they were supporting the cartoonish Trump before why stop now? As the elections grow closer, his support will weaken considerably.

[newtogolf]

Does POTUS really need to make a statement "condemning" people who commit crimes. Going by this logic shouldnt he be making statements "condemning" anyone from committing crimes?

Do we really need to have a statement from any POTUS telling us he thinks crimes are wrong?

Obama felt the need to condemn the NY and Ferguson police departments handling of criminals.  He also felt the need to speak out against Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin) so let's not pretend he hasn't done it before.

[newtogolf]

It's too far out and people aren't taking the decision seriously yet, nor should they really. It's why Deez Nuts is polling so well. It's not a real decision for people yet so who cares? If they were supporting the cartoonish Trump before why stop now? As the elections grow closer, his support will weaken considerably.

QFT, people will grow tired of Trump by the time the elections get close.  He is pressing some hot buttons that people have been frustrated about with Obama but he's going to run out of steam as he can't sustain this level of news and social media coverage for another year.  Best thing he could do if he really wants to win (which I still question) is to slow down and let things settle for a while and fire back up the campaign as we get closer to future debates and the vote.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer

Does POTUS really need to make a statement "condemning" people who commit crimes. Going by this logic shouldnt he be making statements "condemning" anyone from committing crimes?

Do we really need to have a statement from any POTUS telling us he thinks crimes are wrong?

Obama felt the need to condemn the NY and Ferguson police departments handling of criminals.  He also felt the need to speak out against Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin) so let's not pretend he hasn't done it before.

He also felt the need to refer to police as "stupid" after his Harvard professor friend got detained by law enforcement while they were investigating a report of a burglary at his residence (Google "Beer Summit").

[acerimusdux]

People have differing views of him, and I can understand that. But if you're running for President of the United States, you cannot glibly joke about how you'd approve of the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. That's so far beyond the pale, it's irredeemable.

Well he's also flat out said Snowden should be executed as well, and I don't think he was joking.

I was thinking of Trump as being likely unacceptable to the religious right (and maybe better in terms of individual liberty on some issues, like abortion or legalizing drugs), but I was probably underestimating how offensive he would be to the truly libertarian wing of the Republican party.  For anyone who is paranoid about the government spying on us, for example, Trump is probably worse than any Democrat would be.

I guess the question then is whether those two wings (who don't normally play all that well together to begin with) can agree together on on an acceptable alternative to beat him.

[Elmer]

Obama felt the need to condemn the NY and Ferguson police departments handling of criminals.  He also felt the need to speak out against Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin) so let's not pretend he hasn't done it before.

That is correct, Potus did and can comment on these actions. However that does not mean that every time there is a crime committed we need a statement from POTUS!

We dont need to tell us that murder by an illegal immigrant is bad!

And does the silence and none comment on all the other murders committed by citizens tantamount to condoning?

" Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical..." GWB June 20, 2007)

[Chilli Dipper]

That is correct, Potus did and can comment on these actions. However that does not mean that every time there is a crime committed we need a statement from POTUS! We dont need to tell us that murder by an illegal immigrant is bad! And does the silence and none comment on all the other murders committed by citizens tantamount to condoning? "[COLOR=252525]Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical..." GWB June 20, 2007)[/COLOR]

Beyond that, there's a very nasty undertone to sensationalizing the kinds of crimes people on the right are getting worked up over. Lynchings, race riots, pogroms -- any type of mob violence perpetrated by white Christians against a population that isn't -- have most often been sparked, for hundreds of years, by charges of the "other" violating the virtue of white women. Meanwhile, white men have raped, assaulted, or murdered women of color far more often than the inverse, without fear of retribution, because those are the perks of white male privilege. Sadly, women of all backgrounds are victims of sexual violence in this country, and men of all backgrounds are guilty of those crimes. Furthermore, it happens far too frequently for us to be outraged at every separate offense that occurs. We condemn mass shootings regardless of the the color or religion of those involved, but those are infrequent. We show outrage when an unarmed black man is the victim of police force because the statistics show black men are singled out for it compared to the rest of the population; an unarmed white man being the victim of police force should receive equal outrage, but incidents like that just don't happen with the same frequency. But Donald Trump, or the conservative media, calling attention to isolated incidents of women being raped or murdered only when the woman is white and the man is an undocumented Hispanic, when those details are irrelevant to the prevalence of those crimes? The intended reaction is not to demand justice, but to incite hatred.

[rkim291968]

But Donald Trump, or the conservative media, calling attention to isolated incidents of women being raped or murdered only when the woman is white and the man is an undocumented Hispanic, when those details are irrelevant to the prevalence of those crimes? The intended reaction is not to demand justice, but to incite hatred.

I believe his intent is a lot more narcissistic than that.   He is using these emotional arguments without base to further his chance of winning POTUS.   As I have repeated many times in this thread, I believe he has a huge case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.   He doesn't care about justice, race, women, ....   All he cares about is Trump to the extend that he will make up stories, exaggerate, attack others to further his personal goal.  NPD is what NPD does.  Add huge ego and Trump has a make up of a Khadafi, Sadaam, Marcos, Putin, and other well known dictators.  Note that all of them have their own followers.  In fact, Puitin is hugely popular despite Ukrain and resulting sanctions against his Russian empire.    Someone in an earlier post mentioned "fascism" when describing Trump's rhetoric.  The poster is exactly right.

[Chilli Dipper]

I believe his intent is a lot more narcissistic than that.   He is using these emotional arguments without base to further his chance of winning POTUS.   As I have repeated many times in this thread, I believe he has a huge case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.   He doesn't care about justice, race, women, ....   All he cares about is Trump to the extend that he will make up stories, exaggerate, attack others to further his personal goal.  NPD is what NPD does.  Add huge ego and Trump has a make up of a Khadafi, Sadaam, Marcos, Putin, and other well known dictators.  Note that all of them have their own followers.  In fact, Puitin is hugely popular despite Ukrain and resulting sanctions against his Russian empire.    [b]Someone in an earlier post mentioned "fascism" when describing Trump's rhetoric.  The poster is exactly right.[/b]

Some person? [i]I was the first person who said that! This isn't just a Trump delusion in this case; he's acting as the nativist wing's mouthpiece. It's true that a young woman was murdered in broad daylight in San Francisco by an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy police record; it's also true that an older woman elsewhere in California was raped and murdered in her home, also by an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy police record. Look into the right-wing blogosphere (or don't), and you'll find hundreds of posts treating these two incidents as a disturbing trend, how they could have been prevented had they been deported the first time they were arrested, and that the liberals are making so much noise about Black Lives Matter, yet no one is saying White Lives Matter, Too. They're awful crimes, and no reasonable person would otherwise, but the perpetrators' immigration status has nothing to do with it, nor does it make them unique from the cases of women being raped and murdered by American citizens with lengthy police records. It matters that blacks are victims of police brutality, because the evidence shows that the rest of the population isn't systematically subject to it, but it also mattered when white college students were tear-gassed in non-violent Occupy protests. To segue to another social justice hashtag: yes, all women matter when it comes to being targeted for violence, and the evidence shows that no group of women are less likely to be victims than any other. Still, it's undocumented women who are most vulnerable to abuse: only 20% of rapes are reported as it is, and it's even worse for these women, because they're terrified of being deported for reporting crimes committed against them. It's a far more dire problem than the [i]bête noire[/i] that side of the political spectrum get into a frenzy over, but you will never, ever see them address it. People of that persuasion do a bad job talking about rape anyway, and they probably don't view undocumented immigrants as people, either: if asked about it, I'm sure they feel these women are getting what they deserve.

[rkim291968]

Given the US population of 320M+ and illegal alien population of 10M+, crime between the two groups is going to happen, murder included.   For Trump to use the two recent murders to make a political point is very irresponsible thing to do.   If Trump were running for POTUS in 1900's, I can see him making a similar political speech except he will sound like a member of KKK - "blacks are raping and murdering while women and it needs to be stopped (send them all back to Africa)."