Donald Trump for president?

[RFKFREAK]

So one can only be deceived and lied to if they're married?  Comon' man, what you're suggesting is completely silly.

I don't know where she would be if she dumped her husband 20 years ago but seeing as how she doesn't appear to bring anything fresh (other than simply being a female) to the race I find it hard to believe we'd be talking about her as the next potential president.

As far as riding coattails...  I am actually really curious to see how a woman would handle being president.  But we certainly don't need to rush and pick a sub-par one like Hillary, or that hillbilly Palin.  lol  And ironically I think some of my opposition to her is precisely because of her name.  I do not understand how we as a country occasionally get sucked into thinking it's OK, or even wise, to elect second or third generations of these families (took 50 years to get rid of these Kennedy clowns).  We've got 400 million people in this country, I'm pretty sure we can find quality candidates not named Bush or Clinton.

I don't think anyone would be surprised that I don't think of the Kennedy family as, "clowns," but that's .  I'll just note that Joseph Patrick Kennedy III is currently the congressman from Massachusetts's 4th congressional district so I don't think you're "rid" of them.

[jgreen85]

I actually liked Bush SR. Made the right choice in raising taxes, and was a big part of the reason why economically the 90s were strong. At least from my point of view.

glad bill was in office, but very likely he would not have been had Ross Perot not entered that race.

[jbishop15]

glad bill was in office, but very likely he would not have been had Ross Perot not entered that race.

Eh, I don't know. Perot definitely helped Clinton but Bush SR didn't have much of a shot, I don't think.

[RFKFREAK]

Eh, I don't know. Perot definitely helped Clinton but Bush SR didn't have much of a shot, I don't think.

Yeah, had the election been in 1991, Bush Sr. would have been a shoe-in considering he was very popular post the Gulf War.  A year later, the economy was in the tank and Perot's jumping in-out-and back into the race I don't believe had much of an impact on the final results.

[Gator Hazard]

I remember Clinton and his team running a very energizing campaign, it was the last presidential election that I was not old enough to vote, just missed it by a few years.  Carville was made out to be a genius along with boy wonder Stephanopolopopolopolous.  Carville's real talent was that you can't answer a question if he keeps running his mouth and that is exactly what he would do, he would ask you a question and then babble and ramble right over you about things completely unrelated , trip you up and have you bite on those, and then turn around and say "you didn't answer the question" and he was right.  That was funny.  He did that for years because often times people were too polite or conscious of knowing it might not be a good idea to tell him to STFU on tv so they could answer the question.

At the time, if I could have voted, I would have voted for Clinton.  I think Perot didn't have as much impact on the race as people would like to believe, and think Clinton would have won anyway.  I then remember the democrats getting their arses handed to them in the midterm elections with Gingrich and the Contract with America.  Politics got (and remains) so divisive and to his credit, Clinton came to the center a bit to try and get some legislation passed.  I respect that, even if I did not agree with all of his policies *cough cough NAFTA cough*. He was an average president, much like I think the presidents who have followed him have been.  Everyone wants to talk about what skippy the robot boy Gore would have done if he were in office and quite honestly I don't know that it would have been drastically different.  My point is I feel presidents get credit for things they shouldn't, ultimately take the blame just by sheer occupation of the office when they shouldn't have too because they are in the seat. You couldn't pay me enough to do that job and drag my family through all the mud.

[RFKFREAK]

I remember Clinton and his team running a very energizing campaign, it was the last presidential election that I was not old enough to vote, just missed it by a few years.  Carville was made out to be a genius along with boy wonder Stephanopolopopolopolous.  Carville's real talent was that you can't answer a question if he keeps running his mouth and that is exactly what he would do, he would ask you a question and then babble and ramble right over you about things completely unrelated , trip you up and have you bite on those, and then turn around and say "you didn't answer the question" and he was right.  That was funny.  He did that for years because often times people were too polite or conscious of knowing it might not be a good idea to tell him to STFU on tv so they could answer the question.

At the time, if I could have voted, I would have voted for Clinton.  I think Perot didn't have as much impact on the race as people would like to believe, and think Clinton would have won anyway.  I then remember the democrats getting their arses handed to them in the midterm elections with Gingrich and the Contract with America.  Politics got (and remains) so divisive and to his credit, Clinton came to the center a bit to try and get some legislation passed.  I respect that, even if I did not agree with all of his policies *cough cough NAFTA cough*. He was an average president, much like I think the presidents who have followed him have been.  Everyone wants to talk about what skippy the robot boy Gore would have done if he were in office and quite honestly I don't know that it would have been drastically different.  My point is I feel presidents get credit for things they shouldn't, ultimately take the blame just by sheer occupation of the office when they shouldn't have too because they are in the seat. You couldn't pay me enough to do that job and drag my family through all the mud.

Maybe domestically, but I'd like to think that the Iraq War wouldn't have developed as fast as it did, if it would have happened at all.

[Gator Hazard]

Maybe domestically, but I'd like to think that the Iraq War wouldn't have developed as fast as it did, if it would have happened at all.

That is correct and is something we will never know.  I do remember a very irrate congress with politicians on both sides of the aisle calling for action.  Whether or not Gore would have done something or not remains to be seen.  I would like to think he would have been more tactical and not just gone clearly after Hussein in Iraq (although many people forget that when Iraq threw out the UN Inspectors that was by the terms of the treaty an act of war that Clinton let go.  One must also ask why you would throw out wmd inspectors if you had nothing to hide).

[RFKFREAK]

That is correct and is something we will never know.  I do remember a very irrate congress with politicians on both sides of the aisle calling for action.  Whether or not Gore would have done something or not remains to be seen.  I would like to think he would have been more tactical and not just gone clearly after Hussein in Iraq (although many people forget that when Iraq threw out the UN Inspectors that was by the terms of the treaty an act of war that Clinton let go.  One must also ask why you would throw out wmd inspectors if you had nothing to hide).

I remember Democrats feeling like they had to get behind President Bush for fear of being labeled weak or un-American, especially when you saw a person like Colin Powell, respected by members of both parties, addressing the UN about WMD's.

We'll never really know how our nation what direction the US would have taken under a different president or what kind of leader Gore would have been domestically.  Who knows, maybe the economic downturn of 2008 would have been more severe.

[rkim291968]

Unless you all can connect these posts to Trump's candidacy, these are off topic.   I think an esteemed new forum leader has started a politics' thread where you can go post on Clintons, Perots, Kennedys, etc..

[Gator Hazard]

I remember Democrats feeling like they had to get behind President Bush for fear of being labeled weak or un-American, especially when you saw a person like Colin Powell, respected by members of both parties, addressing the UN about WMD's.

We'll never really know how our nation what direction the US would have taken under a different president or what kind of leader Gore would have been domestically.  Who knows, maybe the economic downturn of 2008 would have been more severe.

I do too, but I also remember many of them on the floor of the senate and house insisting how they knew Iraq and Sadam Hussein had WMDs.  I don't think they were forced to say that for fear of looking weak.  At the end of the day I don't agree with how we invaded Iraq.  First of all, if we were going to do it, it should have been swiftly, not tell them "hey, we are giving you 30 days to move your wmds to Syria before we come getcha".  He should have either gone in much sooner OR not gone after them at all but oil is king.

[RFKFREAK]

Unless you all can connect these posts to Trump's candidacy, these are off topic.   I think an esteemed new forum leader has started a politics' thread where you can go post on Clintons, Perots, Kennedys, etc..

Oh, that's right!

Maybe a mod would be kind enough to move those posts there.

I do too, but I also remember many of them on the floor of the senate and house insisting how they knew Iraq and Sadam Hussein had WMDs.  I don't think they were forced to say that for fear of looking weak.  At the end of the day I don't agree with how we invaded Iraq.  First of all, if we were going to do it, it should have been swiftly, not tell them "hey, we are giving you 30 days to move your wmds to Syria before we come getcha".  He should have either gone in much sooner OR not gone after them at all but oil is king.

Oh, yeah, lots of them did, but I really think that the Dems knew that going into 2004 elections they really couldn't appear to look weak and, in a lot of those swing states, they had to look strong.  One of the things that always got me in 2007/2008 was when then Senator Obama would say he was against the Iraq War from the beginning and I was like, he wasn't elected to the U.S. Senate until 2006 and had a state legislative seat where being against the war wasn't an act of political courage.  In that climate, I doubt anyone who wasn't in a safe seat could be a Democrat and be against the war.

[k-troop]

Can't believe I'm about to comment on this thread, but here goes. I'm a disillusioned social progressive moderate. Label me what you will, but I think my core beliefs are pretty mainstream. I tend to identify with moderate aspects of both parties. That said, Trump speaks to me in a couple of ways. For one, I'm absolutely sick of DC's complete political ineffectiveness. Obama isn't a bad president, nor was Bush. However neither have solved the major social issues. Due to the partisan nature of electoral politics, no partisan could or can. That's Don's appeal. I don't know if his schtick is a strategy, if it is I don't know if it would work, and I certainly haven't decided to vote for him. But what I can say for certain is this: no one is else in the discussion will be any different than what hasn't worked for the last 15 years. American politics needs a game changer, and it needs to bottom out. Trump may be the bottom. He is essentially "none of the above" (for those of you old enough to have seen that movie).

[newtogolf]

Can't believe I'm about to comment on this thread, but here goes.

I'm a disillusioned social progressive moderate. Label me what you will, but I think my core beliefs are pretty mainstream. I tend to identify with moderate aspects of both parties.

That said, Trump speaks to me in a couple of ways. For one, I'm absolutely sick of DC's complete political ineffectiveness. Obama isn't a bad president, nor was Bush. However neither have solved the major social issues. Due to the partisan nature of electoral politics, no partisan could or can.

That's Don's appeal. I don't know if his schtick is a strategy, if it is I don't know if it would work, and I certainly haven't decided to vote for him. But what I can say for certain is this: no one is else in the discussion will be any different than what hasn't worked for the last 15 years. American politics needs a game changer, and it needs to bottom out. Trump may be the bottom. He is essentially "none of the above" (for those of you old enough to have seen that movie).

I agree, most people I speak to don't like Trump for who he is, most think he's a jerk. They are just tired of career politicians and want someone who isn't one and has the guts to challenge the way this country has been run for the last 15 years.

[jbishop15]

Unless you all can connect these posts to Trump's candidacy, these are off topic.   I think an esteemed new forum leader has started a politics' thread where you can go post on Clintons, Perots, Kennedys, etc..   :-P

Don't punish them with my mistake! :-D

[k-troop]

I agree, most people I speak to don't like Trump for who he is, most think he's a jerk. They are just tired of career politicians and want someone who isn't one and has the guts to challenge the way this country has been run for the last 15 years.

This is me exactly. I don't care if the president is a nice guy. Anyone who has held a leadership position in a large organization, or any organization going through crisis, knows one thing: your job is to lead, not be liked.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I agree, most people I speak to don't like Trump for who he is, most think he's a jerk. They are just tired of career politicians and want someone who isn't one and has the guts to challenge the way this country has been run for the last 15 years.

This is me exactly. I don't care if the president is a nice guy. Anyone who has held a leadership position in a large organization, or any organization going through crisis, knows one thing: your job is to lead, not be liked.

I understand the sentiment but a business leader who is so used to running things as an absolute dictator won't translate well into POTUS.  POTUS is not that kind of position.   It it is, I am sure most past POTUSes would have gotten a lot more done, for good or for worse.    Also, one can't overlook the person's underlying personality that will be reflected doing his job.   He's a known narcissist to extreme, and business man with his own empire.  He will do what benefits him & his ego, not for the USA.  Anyone who thinks he cares about illegal immigration is fooling himself.   All he is doing is latching onto an issue that would given him high marks among the Reps.   Given that his fact digestion & interpretation is a suspect, decision making & behavior pattern that equals a 13 year old brat, people must look past the sentiment.

Tweeting against Megyan at 3:00 am is a stuff that we see from a troll.  And what did Megyan do to deserve that?  She asked a tough question on Trump's past behavior against woman, a question that would have been asked even if it is not Trump.   As a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Trump can't take rejection (or what he perceives as rejection).  Rejection leads to anger and an NPD can't control that.  As a POTUS, many will speak against him and his policy.   What's he gonna do in those cases?   Say, if Putin makes fun of him and he's not into SNS.  Trump is gonna bomb Puitan's palace?    I am exaggerating here to make a point.   Trump = NPD.   But if the Reps are willing to nominate him for POTUS, they deserve Trump.

[newtogolf]

I understand the sentiment but a business leader who is so used to running things as an absolute dictator won't translate well into POTUS.  POTUS is not that kind of position.   It it is, I am sure most past POTUSes would have gotten a lot more done, for good or for worse.    Also, one can't overlook the person's underlying personality that will be reflected doing his job.   He's a known narcissist to extreme, and business man with his own empire.  He will do what benefits him & his ego, not for the USA.  Anyone who thinks he cares about illegal immigration is fooling himself.   All he is doing is latching onto an issue that would given him high marks among the Reps.   Given that his fact digestion & interpretation is a suspect, decision making & behavior pattern that equals a 13 year old brat, people must look past the sentiment.

Tweeting against Megyan at 3:00 am is a stuff that we see from a troll.  And what did Megyan do to deserve that?  She asked a tough question on Trump's past behavior against woman, a question that would have been asked even if it is not Trump.   As a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Trump can't take rejection (or what he perceives as rejection).  Rejection leads to anger and an NPD can't control that.  As a POTUS, many will speak against him and his policy.   What's he gonna do in those cases?   Say, if Putin makes fun of him and he's not into SNS.  Trump is gonna bomb Puitan's palace?    I am exaggerating here to make a point.   Trump = NPD.   But if the Reps are willing to nominate him for POTUS, they deserve Trump.

I think you're confusing our appreciation for a fresh voice on politics with endorsing Trump for POTUS.  I happen to like Dr. Ben Carson as well, he's a brilliant man who hasn't been corrupted by a career in politics.  Most people have narcissistic tendencies, Trump is unique because the persona he created for himself to gain attention is over the top narcissistic.  He's always had the "best" buildings, "best" casinos, "best" reality television series, "best" home.  It's a marketing gimmick, his bragging and outrageous claims have been part of his persona for over 20 years.  His public gripes with Rosie and Megyan are juvenile but the purpose of them is to keep his name at the top of the headlines.  The more people talk about him the less they will talk about Jeb, Cruz, Rubio and others.

He also isn't stupid, he knows that as POTUS he won't be able to act independently of congress, he won't be able to bully other countries, but I do believe he won't be bullied either.  You don't get as wealthy as Trump without knowing how to interact with others, how to negotiate and how to be diplomatic when necessary.

The reason I won't vote for Trump at this point is time is he's to polarizing.  Obama couldn't get the Republicans on board with his agenda and Trump will have problems with the Democrats given the way he's attacked their key party members.  We need someone who will work for a common good and I think Carson is a better choice in that regard.

When it comes to Trump you have to look past the persona and consider the key points he's addressing.

[Golfingdad]

Can't believe I'm about to comment on this thread, but here goes. I'm a disillusioned social progressive moderate. Label me what you will, but I think my core beliefs are pretty mainstream. I tend to identify with moderate aspects of both parties. That said, Trump speaks to me in a couple of ways. For one, I'm absolutely sick of DC's complete political ineffectiveness. Obama isn't a bad president, nor was Bush. However neither have solved the major social issues. Due to the partisan nature of electoral politics, no partisan could or can. That's Don's appeal. I don't know if his schtick is a strategy, if it is I don't know if it would work, and I certainly haven't decided to vote for him. But what I can say for certain is this: no one is else in the discussion will be any different than what hasn't worked for the last 15 years. American politics needs a game changer, and it needs to bottom out. Trump may be the bottom. He is essentially "none of the above" (for those of you old enough to have seen that movie).

Good post. P.S. Got a spare 30 mil you need help with spending??