http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/u...neral-election-battleground.html?mabReward=A1
Can Donald Trump Win? These Battleground Regions Will Decide
Can Donald Trump Win? These Battleground Regions Will Decide
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Bill "Mitt is going to win by a landslide" Kristol, who on earth still takes that man seriously, he is a buffoon.
Yeah, Willie Horton was just a criminal right...not a scary-looking black guy coming to your nice, white suburb.
Fecking Al Gore bringing him into that campaign.
Raoul mentioned one reason - he's got personality appeal. His appearances on Real Time displayed he is seemingly clued in on politics and far more presidential acting than Trump. He seems to side more with the left (certainly when it comes to domestic issues) although I'm not really sure of his actual voting history and whatnot.
He's being rumored as a VP pick for either side.
Last edited:
I'd much rather Hillary holding that nuclear football than Trump, regardless of her handling of classified emails and whatnot. I've never been a fan of Hillary but...
Christ, are we really that hard up for POTUS candidates?
That's the point (in bold), that states' rights as a term used in political debate isn't restricted just to racists from Dixie. Westerners like Goldwater and Reagan, who were certifiably not racist (look it up) sincerely believed in the right of states to perform those functions of government that they believed were best performed at the state level rather than the federal level. In the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Goldwater was horrifically wrong and I'll freely acknowledge that over and over, but as that term is used today, in 2016, that term is regularly used by both Democrats and Republicans to defend their positions on myriad issues.
Forget about Obama and his invocation of "states' rights"? How about Nancy Pelosi, an authentic liberal Democrat?
The California Democrat said that medical marijuana is “both a medical and a states’ rights issue.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2879688/posts
I know Nancy Pelosi and I assure she is no conservative wolf in liberal sheep's clothing. She is the real deal and she has no reservation in invoking states' rights, provided that the cause is just. It may be medical marijuana, clean air or clean water, but she deeply deeply believes in the right of states to make laws as they wish on such matters, provided that they conform to constitutional norms.
Conservatives also believe in "states' rights", provided that states conform to constitutional norms. Like it or not, the right to bear arms is widely understood to be an individual right in the US. Conservatives will grant states some leeway in regulating the ownership of firearms, but they sharply limit their understanding of states' rights in light of what they view to be the primacy of the Second Amendment, "the one that guarantees all of the others".
Your point re "states' right" overall is ahistorical rubbish, but your broader point overall regarding white supremacists overtaking the party, while sullied with hyperbole not unknown on cyber forums, is not too far off the mark. I know Republicans who a year or two ago understood the truth that most illegal aliens came to the United States looking for work and a better life for their families, now perceive them to be rapists and drug dealers.
We can thank largely Trump for that, but it's a two way street. He's tapped into a reservoir or hate and loathing that resides within the psyche of many Americans (not just Reps, by the way) despite the observable experience of most of us in the western United States that illegal aliens are human beings too who share the same aspirations as the rest of us, and that blacks and Asians are human beings of equal dignity, dignity which Trump explicitly denies with almost every single day.
In most cases that would be insulting. But in Trump's case its actually quite a compliment. The reality is that its closer to 75-80%
Cuban has more depth to him. Politically he has some terra firma to his political views.
He is appalled by The Donald being the man behind the button. Called him an airhead and he should stick to real estate. He said that Trump doesn't know how to use email in past interviews!
That's a good interview. However, he doesn't say he can't use email; he says he doesn't email. He gets an assistant to do it for him. Sound like his tweets.
The rest of the takedown is polite but absolutely cutting though
That's a good interview. However, he doesn't say he can't use email; he says he doesn't email. He gets an assistant to do it for him. Sound like his tweets.
The rest of the takedown is polite but absolutely cutting though
There was another interview with Cuban who said that Trump was an airhead again (in a nice way) and couldn't even use email. I will need to look for it.
Ahhhhh ok
The amazing thing about Trump is that he has been around since the late 70s/early 80s. He was full of crap then still is now.
I just cant understand how he can be in this position today -- of being so close to the (nuclear) button. Has a major proportion of the population gone so blind that they lost the ability to see through crap and are blinded by desperation?
In a word, yes.
Shittiest collection ever. So, yes.
Hate talk radio and the likes of Fox News have created a polarization of American politics, coupled with dark money that gave rise to the Tea Party and fringe politics. Everything is black and white now, there is no middle ground. Rs are labelled RINOs when they dare practice bipartisanship that doesn't agree with those hate talk pundits and TPs (backed by dark money). Trump garnered that supposed anger and resentment by a portion of the supporting base (all manufactured thanks to hate talk pundits). Those pundits created the polarization and this ultimately led to the rise of assholes like Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, etc., and ultimately allowed Trump to reign.
George Friedman was one of the featured speakers at Mauldin Economics’ annual Strategic Investment Conference that was held last week in Dallas. In true Texas style, we corralled George for a one-on-one talk and picked his brain on a few topics that are currently grabbing media headlines: Trump, immigration, trade, Mexico, and China.
To see what he had to say, click on this video screenshot—or read the transcript below…
Mauldin Economics: What would a Trump presidency mean for Mexico?
George Friedman: Very little. Mexico is the primary export target for California and for the entire American Southwest. If you disrupt that flow, you’re going to have a revolt from the western states like you’ve never seen.
ME: So the wall is not going to be built.
GF: The wall can be built, but what is it going to accomplish? The trucks had better come through. And this is really the problem.
The wall as a concept is, “We are going to protect ourselves from Mexico.”
We are not going to protect ourselves from the world’s 11th largest economy. We don’t want to protect ourselves from that. We do want to protect ourselves from immigration, but there isn’t immigration now.
In a way, I understand what Trump is saying, which is that we have to have a nationalist foreign policy.
But in this particular case, working closely with Mexico is a nationalist foreign policy.
ME: So, ultimately, you think the rhetoric is overblown. And if Trump were to be elected, the relationship would probably continue on the way it has been. Or do you see major changes actually happening?
GF: The problem is that the American president is the weakest leader in the Western world. He has very little power.
None of the things he’s talking about doing can he do without Congress’s support.
And this is why I’m saying that it’s all very well that he wants to do it. But I think the California delegation, they’d have a problem; same with the Texas delegation.
So in Congress, if you have Texas and California against you, you’re not going to get it done.
As Obama learned with many of his initiatives, simply having a good idea doesn’t pass. So, very little is going to change.
But he’s going to have to work on his relationship with Mexico. This is a serious country, and he’s burned a lot of personal bridges.
ME: There are two countries that Trump talks about all the time. One is Mexico and the other is China. Realistically, what is that relationship going to look like under a Trump presidency?
GF: He is dealing with China as it was many years ago. In fact, when you hear him on his foreign policy, he’s describing realities that haven’t been true for five or 10 years.
The waves of immigration from Mexico haven’t been happening.
China has not been surging exports into the United States; other countries have.
There is kind of a time warp in how he approaches things. There’s a basic principle that the United States has to watch out for its self-interest, which I think is valid.
I’m not sure he understands the current situation. But then he’s talking to a public that may not understand it either. And he’s using it.
ME: Where is free trade going to end up under a Trump presidency?
GF: Well, free trade has generally, globally, turned into a disaster. Those countries that depend on exports have been smashed. Because in the end, they’re dependent on their customers being able to buy.
And [in a] situation where customers can’t buy, you have a kind of domino effect toppling economies.
So not being an effective exporter is beneficial to the United States right now.
ME: What do you think is maybe the most danger and what’s the most positive aspect of a potential Trump presidency?
GF: The fact is, he has 500,000 troops available in the US Army. Of those, about 300,000 are non-combat troops. He can’t invade countries with that many people successfully. But then he’s not planning to.
He’s planning a much more conservative foreign policy in which we involve ourselves only as it benefits the United States.
The one thing I think is healthy that he’s saying is that we’re going to stop trying to build nations. Let them build themselves.
I think, as in many cases, the candidate has crafted himself for his base. The question is, is he sophisticated enough to understand that as president he’s going to behave differently?
He’s a chameleon. And everybody has said he is a chameleon.
That’s not a bad thing under the circumstances.
To see what he had to say, click on this video screenshot—or read the transcript below…
Mauldin Economics: What would a Trump presidency mean for Mexico?
George Friedman: Very little. Mexico is the primary export target for California and for the entire American Southwest. If you disrupt that flow, you’re going to have a revolt from the western states like you’ve never seen.
ME: So the wall is not going to be built.
GF: The wall can be built, but what is it going to accomplish? The trucks had better come through. And this is really the problem.
The wall as a concept is, “We are going to protect ourselves from Mexico.”
We are not going to protect ourselves from the world’s 11th largest economy. We don’t want to protect ourselves from that. We do want to protect ourselves from immigration, but there isn’t immigration now.
In a way, I understand what Trump is saying, which is that we have to have a nationalist foreign policy.
But in this particular case, working closely with Mexico is a nationalist foreign policy.
ME: So, ultimately, you think the rhetoric is overblown. And if Trump were to be elected, the relationship would probably continue on the way it has been. Or do you see major changes actually happening?
GF: The problem is that the American president is the weakest leader in the Western world. He has very little power.
None of the things he’s talking about doing can he do without Congress’s support.
And this is why I’m saying that it’s all very well that he wants to do it. But I think the California delegation, they’d have a problem; same with the Texas delegation.
So in Congress, if you have Texas and California against you, you’re not going to get it done.
As Obama learned with many of his initiatives, simply having a good idea doesn’t pass. So, very little is going to change.
But he’s going to have to work on his relationship with Mexico. This is a serious country, and he’s burned a lot of personal bridges.
ME: There are two countries that Trump talks about all the time. One is Mexico and the other is China. Realistically, what is that relationship going to look like under a Trump presidency?
GF: He is dealing with China as it was many years ago. In fact, when you hear him on his foreign policy, he’s describing realities that haven’t been true for five or 10 years.
The waves of immigration from Mexico haven’t been happening.
China has not been surging exports into the United States; other countries have.
There is kind of a time warp in how he approaches things. There’s a basic principle that the United States has to watch out for its self-interest, which I think is valid.
I’m not sure he understands the current situation. But then he’s talking to a public that may not understand it either. And he’s using it.
ME: Where is free trade going to end up under a Trump presidency?
GF: Well, free trade has generally, globally, turned into a disaster. Those countries that depend on exports have been smashed. Because in the end, they’re dependent on their customers being able to buy.
And [in a] situation where customers can’t buy, you have a kind of domino effect toppling economies.
So not being an effective exporter is beneficial to the United States right now.
ME: What do you think is maybe the most danger and what’s the most positive aspect of a potential Trump presidency?
GF: The fact is, he has 500,000 troops available in the US Army. Of those, about 300,000 are non-combat troops. He can’t invade countries with that many people successfully. But then he’s not planning to.
He’s planning a much more conservative foreign policy in which we involve ourselves only as it benefits the United States.
The one thing I think is healthy that he’s saying is that we’re going to stop trying to build nations. Let them build themselves.
I think, as in many cases, the candidate has crafted himself for his base. The question is, is he sophisticated enough to understand that as president he’s going to behave differently?
He’s a chameleon. And everybody has said he is a chameleon.
That’s not a bad thing under the circumstances.
Dude, seriously, you think we can largely thank Trump for these hateful views of minorities??? What, did you just immigrate year a couple of years ago? Have you heard the last 20 years of talk radio and Fox News and the Republican party race baiting 24/7.
Do you know how quickly a Republican candidate would´ve been "primaried" out of office if he spoke such heresy as "illegal aliens are human beings too who share the same aspirations as the rest of us, and that blacks and Asians are human beings of equal dignity" Long, long before Trump.
Before Trump took the stage, Eric Cantor, the biggest corporate whore ever to give out free stuff to the military contractors of his district, was booted out by an unknown kook cause little geeky Eric was´t hard enough on immigration.
Do you ever wonder why the Republican party (and some here) obsesses on dog whistling "free stuff" schtick in fiscal conservatism? Cause it´s a dog whistle that it´s free stuff for the minorities. It´s never "free stuff" for corporate welfare or tax breaks or military contractors sweet deals and the inauditable money whole of the Pentagon. Only if you try to fund social investment (minorities) is it free stuff.
Do you think the massive dog whistle that is the Tea Party started with Trump?
Do you think this massive state´s rights push to suppress the minority vote started with Trump?
Take a good look at your party, and you´ll see why they have flocked to this unexperienced, pathological lying megalomaniac . . . cause they love and always have, his racial politics.
Last edited:
Nah - 30-40% chance at best.
Well anything can happen . She is weak, so his chances are growing, although the fact that his is a verbal timebomb may get in the way.
True, but the math is in her favor.
And he's been utterly erratic and unable to act presidential (=attract independents).
I always find this humorous about Trump, specially when he adds Japan to his China, Mexico & Japan "killing us" triad. Its like we're transported back to the early 90s. To me its one more element of the whole "has a high-school level understanding of the world", but I guess that's where a lot of his public stopped their education. (nothing against people who didn't go to college, more about people who didn't and never learned much else about the world through reading, educational TV, travel, etc.)
I don't think HRC is a bad candidate, just a bad campaigner. The reason we have increasingly poor candidates all round is because of the money in politics. Expect things to keep getting worse.
Exactly how I feel, and I have to laugh about his Japan rants as well. But I would say The Donald´s understanding is that of a college frat boy rather than high school level, which is probably even worse.
Very good article in The Atlantic about how that situation changed parole and early release laws.
That may be part of the reason but it wouldn't explain Trump's demagogic rise this cycle. There are a lot of pissed off middle aged and older white males who are looking to express their discomfort by voting for anyone who promises to shake up the establishment.
I'd like to know why Huntsman didn't run again.
He probably wouldn't be able to fund raise given the lack of interest. He's basically as moderate as a Republican can get in the face of a tsunami of right wing populism that Trump is riding.
So you just answered your question about Trump's rise then.
How do you explain Bernie's rise?
What question ?
Indeed.
Ted Strickland's Senate race in Ohio is going to be the most expensive ever, surpassing Warren's 2012 run. More than $40 millions have been committed from both sides
To put that into perspective, that's about 25% of the federal fund allocated for lead proofing the houses of poor minorities.
Pretty much the same - although on the left it's more about youth populism and a general dissatisfaction with establishment politics that don't address basic needs like health care, education, government services, racial issues, and growing income disparity.
He did well because he could fund his own campaign. No sensible repubs were able to run because they can't get the money. Trump was only doing it for the lolz too.
He's an outlier in that sense though as none of the other 17 were able to self-fund, and even Trump himself is now using outside money to augment whatever he is funding. His success obviously has nothing to do with his ability to fund part of his own campaign, its down to a general sentiment of people who support him, who believe they can use him as a device to express their anger at the system.
Bernie isnt any better. Most politicans are no experts in anything.
Yes!
Trump making a campaign stop in Sacramento tomorrow. I'm having that.
Trump making a campaign stop in Sacramento tomorrow. I'm having that.
- Status