2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Neutral said:
I think you're doing a great disservice to GWB. I don't think his integrity thing was a facade. I truly believe he was a well meaning and compassionate patriot.
Click to expand...

To be honest I don't know about W sometimes. It could be that he's simply an ideologue who's well meaning at heart ( no child left behind etc) but then again his family cronyism with big businesses, his eagerness to invade Iraq ( find me a way ), his Reaganomics make me think the devout likeable personae he projects is just an act.

Read an interesting excerpt today on Politico, from the new bio of Bush Snr. Apparently the conviction about good vs evil, or you can say the Messiah complex runs deep in the family.
 
Trump has broken Fox News!

His immigration comments have completely divided everyone and Fox don't know what to do, they can't be seen to be supporting Trump, but are struggling to disagree with him. They just had Michelle Malkin (feckwit of the highest order) disagreeing with him yet at the same time completely agreeing with him. Priceless :lol::lol::lol:
 
Could Trump get any crazier?

Yes, yes he can.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-rant-on-everything-thats-wrong-in-this-race/
 
The G.O.P. at an Immigration Crossroads
Click to expand...
NOV. 13, 2015
  • It’s no exaggeration to say that the next six months will determine the viability of the Republican Party. The demographics of this country are changing. This will be the last presidential election cycle in which the G.O.P., in its current form, has even a shot at winning the White House. And so the large question Republicans must ask themselves is: Are we as a party willing to champion the new America that is inexorably rising around us, or are we the receding roar of an old America that is never coming back?

    Within that large question the G.O.P. will have to face several other questions.

    The first is: How is 21st-century America going to view outsiders? For Republicans in the Donald Trump camp, the metaphor is very clear: A wall. Outsiders are a threat and a wall will keep them out.


    Republicans in the Jeb Bush camp have a very different metaphor. As Bush and his co-author Clint Bolick wrote in their book, “Immigration Wars,” “When immigration policy is working right it is like a hydroelectric dam: a sturdy wall whose valves allow torrents of water to pour through, creating massive amounts of dynamic energy.” Under this metaphor the outside world is not a threat; it’s a source of creativity, dynamism and perpetual renewal.

    The second question Republicans have to ask is: Can the party see reality? The great Victorian critic John Ruskin once wrote: “The more I think of it I find this conclusion more impressed upon me — that the greatest thing a human soul ever does in this world is to see something, and tell what it saw in a plain way. Hundreds of people can talk for one who can think, but thousands can think for one who can see.”

    Some Republican leaders simply lack the ability or willingness to acknowledge reality. Deporting 11 million people is not reality. Building a physical wall across the southern border is not reality. I’m sorry, Ted Cruz, but going back to the gold standard is not reality.

    The third G.O.P. question is: How does the party view leadership? For a rising number of Republicans — congregating around Trump and Ben Carson — leadership is about ignorance and inexperience. Actually having prepared for the job is a disqualifying factor. Knowing the substance of government is a negative.

    On the other side, people like John Kasich and Bush are becoming more aggressive in their defense of experience, knowledge and craftsmanship. They’ve become more aggressive in making the case that governance is hard and you’ve got to know how things fit together.

    In the realm of immigration, the first conclusion any pragmatist draws is that it’s ridiculous to say we just need to start enforcing the laws. The problem, as Bush has argued, is that the laws are dysfunctional. The whole system is wildly broken and it would cause massive dislocation if the rules were actually enforced. The system needs to be reformed.

    The other conclusion any pragmatist draws is that for political and practical reasons, the whole system has to be reformed comprehensively and at once. You can’t do anything effective unless all the pieces fit together. As Bush and Bolick argued in their book, “A goal of sealing the border is hopeless without creating an immigration pipeline that provides a viable alternative to illegal immigration.”
    As anybody with legislative experience knows, nothing can be passed unless Republican interests are rallied along with Democratic interests, unless Silicon Valley’s political influence is joined by the farm state’s political influence. Doing that requires experience and knowledge.

    Republican craftsmen understand this reality. Political naïfs do not.

    The fourth question is: How does the Republican Party treat the distrust that is so pervasive in our society?

    For some in the Cruz, Trump and Bobby Jindal camps, this distrust is to be exploited. This produces a kind of nihilism. Tear down. Oppose. Scorn. Shut down government but do not have an actual plan to achieve your goals once it’s shut down. Depose a House speaker but have no viable path forward once he is gone.

    The other approach is to see distrust as a problem that can be reduced with effective conservative governance. Under Ronald Reagan, faith in government actually rose, because people saw things like tax reform getting done. Republicans in this camp view cynicism as a poison to be drained, not a kerosene to be lit.

    On all these levels, the Republican Party faces a crossroads moment. Immigration is the key issue around which Republicans will determine the course of their party. It’ll be fascinating to see which way they go.

    One more point. I’m sorry, Marco Rubio, when your party faces a choice this stark, with consequences this monumental, you’re probably not going to be able to get away with being a little on both sides. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opinion/the-gop-at-an-immigration-crossroads.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
 
So how long till people start to drop out of the race in significant numbers?
The first Primary is on 1st Feb so presumably once thanksgiving, Xmas and New Years are out of the way its time for candidates to start committing signifigant advertising spends for the 4 primaries in feb and then another 28 primaries in March.
Surely the financial backing for those currently polling single digits will run out pretty quickly and they will have to take the decision to withdraw?
Given that Carson and Trump are both seen as somewhat non conventional candidates is there a real possibility that should one withdraw a significant proportion of their vote would switch to the others camp as a non establishment candidate or are the politics too different to have this happen - because if one of them could pick up half the others supporters whilst the rest split over a few candidates they would surely take an almost insurmountable lead in the polls?
 
Of the current GOP field, Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Bush and possibly Carson have the resources to last until June, or even the convention.

Gilmore, Pataki, Jindal, Huckabee will drop out in the next 2 months. Fiorina, Christie, Paul and Kasich may hang around for a while, but they don't have the financial backing or the grassroots support for the long game.

Interestingly, Bush is not out completely yet. John Kerry in 2004 polled 7 percent before Iowa, ended up winning it. Of course the Dems didn't have any viable establishment candidate other than him at the time though so his fortunes will depend on how effective the attack ads on Rubio will be.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Of the current GOP field, Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Bush and possibly Carson have the resources to last until June, or even the convention.

Gilmore, Pataki, Jindal, Huckabee will drop out in the next 2 months. Fiorina, Christie, Paul and Kasich may hang around for a while, but they don't have the financial backing or the grassroots support for the long game.

Interestingly, Bush is not out completely yet. John Kerry in 2004 polled 7 percent before Iowa, ended up winning it. Of course the Dems didn't have any viable establishment candidate other than him at the time though so his fortunes will depend on how effective the attack ads on Rubio will be.
Click to expand...
Im getting more ad more convinced Trump is going to somehow pull this off - it seems there is this expectation he will say something stupid, or offensive, or he will be exposed as having no experience or little understanding of a complex issue and his campaign will collapse - but he has done all those things already and he is doing just fine... He may even do something like offer carson VP to secure most of his votes as well...
 
sun_tzu said:
Im getting more ad more convinced Trump is going to somehow pull this off - it seems there is this expectation he will say something stupid, or offensive, or he will be exposed as having no experience or little understanding of a complex issue and his campaign will collapse - but he has done all those things already and he is doing just fine... He may even do something like offer carson VP to secure most of his votes as well...
Click to expand...


Rubio is starting to get some momentum. Cruz is also doing well. It is very unlikely that Trump is going to win the nomination. Carson has no chance at all. Jeb! is toast. He really looks like someone, who got talked into running against his own wishes.. He looks so awkward and demotivated it is staggering.
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
Im getting more ad more convinced Trump is going to somehow pull this off - it seems there is this expectation he will say something stupid, or offensive, or he will be exposed as having no experience or little understanding of a complex issue and his campaign will collapse - but he has done all those things already and he is doing just fine... He may even do something like offer carson VP to secure most of his votes as well...
Click to expand...

He peaked at ~ 25% for months now. I don't think he has a chance. 75% won't vote for him no matter what. He's also attacking Carson so that door is closed, not to mention that Carson's support is mostly religious nutjobs, evangelicals etc... Who for the most parts detest Trump.

It'll be Rubio or Bush in the end.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
He peaked at ~ 25% for months now. I don't think he has a chance. 75% won't vote for him no matter what. He's also attacking Carson so that door is closed, not to mention that Carson's support is mostly religious nutjobs, evangelicals etc... Who for the most parts detest Trump.

It'll be Rubio or Bush in the end.
Click to expand...
I think that depends almost entirely on who drops out before slash during the primaries. Just checked a couple of PPP polls for South Carolina and Iowa, Trump has over 50% favourability ratings in both (+20 overall), whereas Bush is down in the 30s (-10 overall). They also poll for second preferences, and Trump gets a lot from the likes of Bush (?!), Carson and Rubio. But overall, Carson picks up even more (and Rubio doesn't get quite as many as either). In one to one runoffs the results are mixed, in Iowa he loses to Rubio, Cruz and Carson fairly convincingly but beats Bush, in SC he loses big to Carson but ties with Rubio and Cruz and beats Bush by a lot again.

Bush looks toast overall. Carson is the big unknown, is his bubble going to burst at some point or is he going to mirror Trump and stay up there in spite of being an imbecile? If he bursts, where are his voters going? If he stays, he may well end up getting the nomination because he picks up a lot of support from others that may drop out. I'd usually say there's no chance he can last, but I thought that about Trump. And according to PPP, 3% of the GOP electorate believe the pyramids were built by aliens (7% reckon they're for grain). So who knows.
 
sun_tzu said:
would bush run as his vp?
Click to expand...

Usually I´d say no, but I am not so sure. If a non-establishment candidate wins the nomination, the establishment might push for someone like Bush as running mate.


Red Dreams said:
its unlikely the GOP ticket will ever win but it certainly would raise his creds. He would be shoe-in for 2020.
Click to expand...



I don´t consider running for VP as a necessary stepping stone for a future POTUS nomination. I´d almost argue the opposite especial for politicians who are already well-known. A nasty campaign might ruin your image. Bush doesn´t seem to be overly ambitious so I could see him settling for the position as VP. Rubio on the other hand is eventually the strongest GOP establishment candidate out there. No reason for him to settle for a consolidation prize. He doesn´t need to take any risks, especially when some whack job wins the nomination.

A Rubio/Cruz ticket could be interesting. They might be able to unite the GOP again. Obviously Hillary would be the odds-on favorite against any possible ticket.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Of the current GOP field, Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Bush and possibly Carson have the resources to last until June, or even the convention.

Gilmore, Pataki, Jindal, Huckabee will drop out in the next 2 months. Fiorina, Christie, Paul and Kasich may hang around for a while, but they don't have the financial backing or the grassroots support for the long game.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered why Jindal hasn't done better. Don't know much about the man or his background other than the basics, but every time I've heard him speak I've been impressed. Sounds reasonable and intelligent.
 
Probably because he's on the wrong side of every issue. Looking like Alfred E Newman probably doesn't help either
 
Raoul said:
Probably because he's on the wrong side of every issue. Looking like Alfred E Newman probably doesn't help either
Click to expand...
Yeah but look who's leading the polls...
 
The GOP are bricking it with Trump and Carson still leading nationally. Some are talking about drafting Romney back in. Joke of a party.
 
Raoul said:
The GOP are bricking it with Trump and Carson still leading nationally. Some are talking about drafting Romney back in. Joke of a party.
Click to expand...
They need to "incentivise" some candidates into dropping out. Bush looks a busted flush, Christie is literally the elephant in the room, Fiorina isn't going to get anywhere. Put all their eggs in Rubio's basket-like ears and have him up against the others splitting the crazy vote.
 
Man of Leisure said:
I've always wondered why Jindal hasn't done better. Don't know much about the man or his background other than the basics, but every time I've heard him speak I've been impressed. Sounds reasonable and intelligent.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
 
Ok serious answer as to why Jindal is a no go - he WAS a rising star but then this happened....

the people in his own state now hate him.

PPP's newest Louisiana poll continues to find that Bobby Jindal is among the least popular Governors in the country
Click to expand...

and this....

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/03/its_time_for_bobby_jindal_to_r.html

and this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/opinion/charles-blow-gov-jindals-implosion.html?_r=0

People ignored his exorcism participation and the bigots loved his anti muslim rants...but when it come down to it, the weasel stopped taking care of business at home.
 
Man of Leisure said:
I've always wondered why Jindal hasn't done better. Don't know much about the man or his background other than the basics, but every time I've heard him speak I've been impressed. Sounds reasonable and intelligent.
Click to expand...

He went to Brown and then Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. He then worked some time at McKinsey (which for any who don't know is a consulting firm and hard to get into) So although I haven't heard him speak, and have noticed that his positions are far from mine, its no surprise if he sounds good. I also remember reading an Economist article 2+ years about him being a promising politician. As someone in finance, I'm always a bit biased towards anyone accomplished in business.

But as we've seen in the case of Dr. Carson, Head of Neurosurgery at John Hopkins, professional success doesn't always translate to good public service.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
He went to Brown and then Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. He then worked some time at McKinsey (which for any who don't know is a consulting firm and hard to get into) So although I haven't heard him speak, and have noticed that his positions are far from mine, its no surprise if he sounds good. I also remember reading an Economist article 2+ years about him being a promising politician. As someone in finance, I'm always a bit biased towards anyone accomplished in business.

But as we've seen in the case of Dr. Carson, Head of Neurosurgery at John Hopkins, professional success doesn't always translate to good public service.
Click to expand...

Jindal would be great if he were a Dem instead of an Indian-American masquerading as a 1980s style white Republican. Instead of being pragmatic on the issues, he like most Republicans is doubling down in a cynical attempt to appeal to the base.
 
Raoul said:
Jindal would be great if he were a Dem instead of an Indian-American masquerading as a 1980s style white Republican. Instead of being pragmatic on the issues, he like most Republicans is doubling down in a cynical attempt to appeal to the base.
Click to expand...

He tried to outcrazy the crazy.

And this was the same guy who only a few years ago said....Republicans needed to

“stop being the stupid party.”

"We must reject the notion that demography is destiny, the pathetic and simplistic notion that skin pigmentation dictates voter behavior," Jindal said.

"We must not become the party of austerity. We must become the party of growth," Jindal said.

"must compete for every single vote — the 47 percent and the 53 percent."

"stop insulting the intelligence of voters"

"We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments," Jindal said.

"We must not be the party that simply protects the well-off so they can keep their toys," Jindal said. "We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive."
Click to expand...

See how reasonable all of that sounds - but then as time progressed and he realized, things weren't happening for him - he started to fully implement the 'go stupid' policy.
 
A little bit of history for those who didn't know.

Barbara Jordan was a Civil Rights leader - a democrat and someone who got elected to congress from Texas in the mid 70's and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

This is what the commission she headed recommended to the Clinton White House in 1995 with regards to legal immigration in the US and something Clinton fully supported.

The White House today welcomed a Federal advisory panel's recommendation to cut legal immigration by one-third.

In addition, Mr. Clinton said the proposal "appears to reflect a balanced immigration policy that makes the most of our diversity while protecting the American work force so that we can better compete in the emerging global economy."

The President's statement places him in the middle of an explosive political debate, at odds with many of his usual supporters, but sympathetic to the concerns of people who want to restrict immigration. Many Republicans, like Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, want to reduce legal immigration. Others see immigration as an engine of economic growth.

Representative Dick Armey, the Texas Republican who is the House majority leader, said: "The commission fails to tell us why we should so dramatically reduce legal immigration. It is long on recommendations, but short on analysis." He said the proposals were "a misguided attempt to make legal immigrants the scapegoats for America's problems."
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/08/us/clinton-embraces-a-proposal-to-cut-immigration-by-a-third.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.