Donald Trump for president?

[newtogolf]

7 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Come on now, that's a bit uncalled for in Bernies case.  His political ideals might be way left, but he is at least honest and virtuous.

I don't mean lowest common denominators as it's all bad but in Bernie's case he's appealing to people who want to see the US become socialist.  In Trumps case more isolationist.

This is all a moot point, the super delegates (democrats) and unpledged delegates (Republicans) will ultimately determine who are the nominees, these primaries and caucuses are just a show to make us believe we have input over who runs for POTUS.

For example, Bernie won NH popular vote by a landslide but because of super delegates Hillary walked away with more overall delegates than Bernie.

[mcanadiens]

7 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Come on now, that's a bit uncalled for in Bernies case.  His political ideals might be way left, but he is at least honest and virtuous.

Honest and virtuous people don't have dinner with people like Sharpton. 

Then again, honest and virtuous people aren't politicians to begin with. 

[saevel25]

49 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Walmart employs people with such small wages that their people are on welfare, so the argument goes that Walmart is a huge beneficiary of living off the government tit.

So is any other person who has a minimum wage job? Correct that, the poverty threshold in 2012 was 11720 for a single person. IF that person worked a 40 hour week every week he would need a wage of $5.63 an hour. Even if they work a 30 hour work week they only need a minimum wage of $7.5 to get above the poverty line. The US minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. 

49 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

As to Bernie's war against financial institutions, can you doubt that Wall St helped out the 2007 Depression? Completely irresponsible behavior based on greed. Hedge fund managers get capital gains rate on their compensation? Ridiculous.

It was the banks not Wallstreet. The banks, and in part the push from Clinton to really get the banks to give out crappy subsidized loans that lead to that. Really Wallstreet took a hit on it because housing was the most sound investment in the past 70 years. It was the banks not Wallstreet. A very very very small number of people made money off the depression in 2007. 

 

[Mr. Desmond]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I don't mean lowest common denominators as it's all bad but in that in Bernie's case he's appealing to people who want to see the US become socialist.  In Trumps case more isolationist.

See that is where I disagree -- the label -- you've taken the socialist label to the nth degree. I don't see Sanders advocating taking over private industry. A Socialist Democrat means in the words of Sanders (from the Washington Post)"

He has called for huge growth in government regulation and spending. But he has stayed away from classic socialist ideas, like government takeovers of private industry. And, in his speeches, Sanders has talked about socialism in modest, solidly American terms: It’s nothing more than the pursuit of fairness in a country now rigged by the rich.

So far, it’s worked — but Sanders still hasn’t had to face an opponent determined to use socialism against him.

“What democratic socialism means to me,” Sanders said during a recent speech in New Hampshire, “is having a government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country.”

I think Trump is the effect of GOP excesses -- people want change but typically vote GOP. These people want easy answers, and Trump gives it to them by blaming others ... sounds vaguely historical. People want action, not a do nothing Congress.

Bernie seems to want to take the excesses of the system and cut them out -- still, he goes too far. I think he places the blame on government and private industry, who have consorted over 30 years to rig the system in favor of the very top at the expense of the 99%.

In different ways, both men have tapped into people's thoughts about the inequity or hopelessness of the current system.

[jamo]

9 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Isn't Bernie doing the same thing?  He's leading a witch hunt against big business and the wealthy.  Do you really believe he's going to pass a 90% income tax on the wealthy, outlaw guns, provide better free healthcare, increase the minimum wage to $15+ country wide and provide free college to everyone?

They are both snake oil sales people appealing to the lowest common denominators of their parties.  Bernie may be more sincere about his beliefs, but that could just mean he's crazier too.

The difference, I'd say, is that Sanders is going to say that stuff whether or not anyone wants to vote for him, whether or not anyone tunes in or shows up to watch his speeches.

[Mr. Desmond]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So is any other person who has a minimum wage job? Correct that, the poverty threshold in 2012 was 11720 for a single person. IF that person worked a 40 hour week every week he would need a wage of $5.63 an hour. Even if they work a 30 hour work week they only need a minimum wage of $7.5 to get above the poverty line. The US minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. 

It was the banks not Wallstreet. The banks, and in part the push from Clinton to really get the banks to give out crappy subsidized loans that lead to that. Really Wallstreet took a hit on it because housing was the most sound investment in the past 70 years. It was the banks not Wallstreet. A very very very small number of people made money off the depression in 2007. 

 

1. Have you tried to live on the poverty line? Get real in terms of no American dream or hope on that line.

2. It was the deregulation of Wall Street, too. Who pushed those funds? Get real again - Clinton was a small part of subsidized loans. Lack of oversight caused the issues. Clinton and the GOP were part of that. Lack of funding the regulators during Bush was also part of it.

Back to Trump - he is in the Bible Belt now and people do not see him as religious, especially with the F and P bombs echoing in the air. If he cut that out, he might cut Ted Cruz.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[Braivo]

9 hours ago, No Gimmie said:

Thank you for your comment.  Being able to express our views is an important part of which makes America great.

Epic shiv. Well done, sir. 

9 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Trump doesn't have an agenda except to his own ego. He doesn't care about America. He doesn't care about the American people. He's uses to screwing as many people over as possible. Heck, why not add Washington to the list. 

For me I think Trump just sat back and thought, "you know what I can win the presidency." Then he's going about doing it. It's all about vanity nothing else. 

He has dated the most beautiful women in the world, he is rich, he has an amazing family, he could sit back and enjoy his remaining years. Rather, he has chosen to use them to put forth a vision for his country. He is spending a great deal of his own money, he has completely shifted his family's life to do this. The man has energy and resources, he wants to use them to make this country great again. 

People are attracted to success and power, he has both. Did you see the way Rubio folded once he took heat for being an actual robot? Does that look like a President to you?

No one, and I mean no one, likes Ted Cruz. No Senators have endorsed him, people think he's a creep. 

Jeb Bush and Carson are nice guys, but people understand that nice guys are not going to fix this country. 

Trump is loyal to those that are loyal to him. He has employed thousands of people in his lifetime and none are coming out to say they were treated poorly, and you know the media is looking for those stories. 

He is the only candidate that stands tall and looks like a leader. He stands up for those weaker than him and calls out the liars and cheaters with force. 

He answers to no one, no establishment owns his message. 

Watch, he will make the deals necessary to get this done. He has received endorsements from prominent evangelicals. When people see that his campaign is for real his numbers are going to continue to climb. He will ultimately make deals and secure the endorsement of the labor unions as well. 

He will mobilize a base of voters that have never voted before, he did this in NH. 

The "establishment" numbers you keep referencing are bunk in this scenario. His support doesn't come from them and he doesn't care. He has dems lining up to vote in open primaries for him. 

[Ernest Jones]

1 hour ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Bernie says the system is rigged - stats since the 1980's prove that a great amount of wealth has shifted towards a very small percentage of people. Does that not concern you? 

Exactly. Started around 1978 and it coincides with declining union density across the country. This decline open the door for further problems, like the proliferation of short and medium term contract work replacing the traditional employment model (you know, the one where employers actually bore some responsibility towards their workforce...). There are a variety of reason behind this decline, some are external forces in the form of corporate and political attacks on worker's rights and some are self inflicted by the bad behaviour of many unions during their heyday. But bottom line, the higher the union density within any nation or region, the more equitable the distribution of wealth. That's why so much power was given to trade and industrial unions, it's good for the economy. When the middle class can't afford to buy shit, you're heading towards major problems.

[newtogolf]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

See that is where I disagree -- the label -- you've taken the socialist label to the nth degree. I don't see Sanders advocating taking over private industry. A Socialist Democrat means in the words of Sanders (from the Washington Post)"

He has called for huge growth in government regulation and spending. But he has stayed away from classic socialist ideas, like government takeovers of private industry. And, in his speeches, Sanders has talked about socialism in modest, solidly American terms: It’s nothing more than the pursuit of fairness in a country now rigged by the rich.

So far, it’s worked — but Sanders still hasn’t had to face an opponent determined to use socialism against him.

“What democratic socialism means to me,” Sanders said during a recent speech in New Hampshire, “is having a government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country.”

I think Trump is the effect of GOP excesses -- people want change but typically vote GOP. These people want easy answers, and Trump gives it to them by blaming others ... sounds vaguely historical. People want action, not a do nothing Congress.

Bernie seems to want to take the excesses of the system and cut them out -- still, he goes too far. I think he places the blame on government and private industry, who have consorted over 30 years to rig the system in favor of the very top at the expense of the 99%.

In different ways, both men have tapped into people's thoughts about the inequity or hopelessness of the current system.

There's no sense in us debating this, we won't ever agree.  I don't believe governments role is to decide who gets what, the free market decides that.  If you want a free college education, study hard and earn scholarships.  We already have a financial aid system in place for those who qualify.  Bernie suggesting that kids are entitled to a college education on the backs of taxpayers is ludicrous.  I say this as a parent who's currently paying for one child that's a sophomore in college and another in 11th grade that is headed to college.

The reality is, we have an ever growing sector of people in this country who through conditioning, laziness and poor life choices have decided that they would rather leech off of others rather than work hard for the things they want.  IMO it's not the governments job to encourage such behavior or to figure out more free things to give them.

Funny that the hopelessness exists only for our own citizens, as many immigrants continue to flock to this country with less than most have here and somehow through hard work and diligence end up being quite successful.

 

[Ernest Jones]

44 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So is any other person who has a minimum wage job? Correct that, the poverty threshold in 2012 was 11720 for a single person. IF that person worked a 40 hour week every week he would need a wage of $5.63 an hour. Even if they work a 30 hour work week they only need a minimum wage of $7.5 to get above the poverty line. The US minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. 

Dude seriously? I suppose you'll argue that if people don't want to eat catfood and have to collect welfare to supplement their jobs so they can care for their families, they should have gone to school longer and got a good job like yours?

I got news for you, the world doesn't need everyone to be a doctor or an engineer, the world needs people to dig ditches, clean toilets and serve hamburgers (hopefully not at the same time, lol). So should these people be required to live substandard lives? I for one, believe that anyone that is working 40h a week, regardless of how menial the task, deserves better than poverty wages and anyone that argues that industry can't afford to pay living wages should ask themselves why. It's not because the money is not there, it's because it's being syphoned at the top.

If you're not paying someone a living wage, what are you paying them?

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Exactly. Started around 1978 and it coincides with declining union density across the country. This decline open the door for further problems, like the proliferation of short and medium term contract work replacing the traditional employment model (you know, the one where employers actually bore some responsibility towards their workforce...). There are a variety of reason behind this decline, some are external forces in the form of corporate and political attacks on worker's rights and some are self inflicted by the bad behaviour of many unions during their heyday. But bottom line, the higher the union density within any nation or region, the more equitable the distribution of wealth. That's what so much power was given to trade and industrial unions, it's good for the economy. When the middle class can't afford to buy shit, you're heading towards major problems.

That's a myth that is being pushed by the democrats but the reality is people are buying quite a lot of products.  In fact, new car sales set record highs in 2015

Quote

U.S. car sales in 2015 jumped to a record, clearing a peak last reached 15 years ago.

In all, auto makers sold 17.5 million cars and light trucks in the U.S. last year, a 5.7% increase, and on average paid more for each one. Americans overall spent about $570 billion on new rides—fueling an industry revival that is putting more money in the pockets of auto workers, dealers and executives.

 

[chspeed]

5 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Started around 1978

This actually all started in 1789, when Hamilton became Secretary of the Treasury and Jefferson the Secretary of State. They had almost the exact same arguments that we're having today. Hamilton, a proponent of free-market systems, strong government regulation (to spur on the economy, limit corruption, and collect taxes), butted heads with Jefferson, a southern populist who was convinced that Hamilton's policies will bring about a nation with a small, powerful, and rich ruling class. A few years later, this split led to our two party system.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Ernest Jones]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

That's a myth that is being pushed by the democrats but the reality is people are buying quite a lot of products.  In fact, new car sales set record highs in 2015

 

Most of that isn't being bought with money, it's being bought with debt load. What happens when the bottom falls out? Remember the housing crisis? People don't need more debt, they need more income. 

[chspeed]

2 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Most of that isn't being bought with money, it's being bought with debt load. What happens when the bottom falls out? Remember the housing crisis? People don't need more debt, they need more income. 

There can't be more income without more debt. Debt is a key part of our economy, always has been.

Edited February 11, 2016 by chspeed

[saevel25]

 

6 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The man has energy and resources, he wants to use them to make this country great again. 

That is laughable. 

You don't think both sides of Congress wouldn't wait for one mishap to send him through an impeachment process. Sorry, but this will be a lame duck session from day 1. 

8 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He is the only candidate that stands tall and looks like a leader. He stands up for those weaker than him and calls out the liars and cheaters with force. 

If by leader you mean a bigot egotistical douchebag then sure. You mean he runs over those weaker than him with his gold plated Humvee then sure. When he gets called out something he lied he acts like a 12 year old, then sure he's a leader. 

11 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Watch, he will make the deals necessary to get this done. He has received endorsements from prominent evangelicals.

That makes me want to vote for him. You mean the evangelicals that have ruined the GOP, sure sounds good. 

15 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The "establishment" numbers you keep referencing are bunk in this scenario. His support doesn't come from them and he doesn't care. He has dems lining up to vote in open primaries for him. 

You mean the fact that he is +27 with Republicans, -27 with Independents and -70 with democrats on favorability. 

He has a -25% unfavorable rating overall. 

Yea, he has those voters lined up. That is why he is the only Republican Candidate polling right now as losing to either Clinton and Sanders. 

Look at it this way. His only voters are the emotional illogical  white angry men. Not the independents, and not the democrats. He is going to get demolished in the primaries. 

7 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

That's what so much power was given to trade and industrial unions, it's good for the economy. When the middle class can't afford to buy shit, you're heading towards major problems.

As long as Public Unions can't use their money to buy political power. It's just a massive conflict of interest in my opinion. 

10 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

I for one, believe that anyone that is working 40h a week, regardless of how menial the task, deserves better than poverty wages and anyone that argues that industry can't afford to pay living wages should ask themselves why. 

Sounds good to me. 

[Ernest Jones]

2 minutes ago, chspeed said:

This actually all started in 1789, when Hamilton became Secretary of the Treasury and Jefferson the Secretary of State. They had almost the exact same arguments that we're having today. Hamilton, a proponent of free-market systems, strong government regulation (to spur on the economy, limit corruption, and collect taxes), butted heads with Jefferson, a southern populist who was convinced that Hamilton's policies will bring about a nation with a small, powerful, and rich ruling class. A few years later, this split led to our two party system.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Fair enough, a lot of water under the bridge since then. From the end of the Great Depression up until 1978 -ish, things were working quite well and the American (or Canadian Dream) was alive and well. White picket fences, a new Chevrolet in the driveway and for the most part, done on single incomes. Then cock-suckers like Reagan came along with their trickle-down economics theories and gutted the Dream. Now they tell us that if the middle class wants bigger crumbs we need to serve the 1% bigger portions. It's Bullshit.

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

As long as Public Unions can't use their money to buy political power. It's just a massive conflict of interest in my opinion. 

Oh yeah, it wouldn't be fair if the working class was able to buy political power. That right is reserved for the Elite. How about true representational elections where nobody is able to buy political power?

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Oh yeah, it wouldn't be fair if the working class was able to buy political power. That right is reserved for the Elite. How about true representational elections where nobody is able to buy political power?

So two wrongs make a right then? 

That's fine with me. I never stated it was just Unions who shouldn't be able to buy their employers to garner benefits. I don't think it should be allowed at all. That is why I never did like the Supreme Court defining the use as money as free speech when it comes for supporting political campaigns. 

 

[chspeed]

5 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

From the end of the Great Depression up until 1978 -ish, things were working quite well and the American (or Canadian Dream) was alive and well.

Agreed. But one could argue that this was an anomaly in our history.