2016 Election
-- His business acumen would serve this country well. I think he would "cut the fat" from our federal government. As a fiscal conservative, I don't think the problem is that my taxes are too high (although they very well may be). The problem is that I'm not getting full value for my tax dollars. There's too high of a House Edge, if I may use the analogy! If the government was run more like a business (streamlined, efficient, putting the customer, i.e. citizens first, etc), it would be better for everyone. I think someone like Trump could do that.
-- He's a leader in that he inspires others. It's been a while since I've been inspired by a resident of the White House.
-- He's fearless. Pols today walk on eggshells because their livelihood relies on everyone (well, at least 50% of their constituency) liking them. Trump seems not to care about that, and is more likely to speak his mind and say what needs to be said. However, this is a two-edged sword as we all can see.
-- He has his own money. He will not be answerable to financial backers. Yeah, I know only a fool would use his own money to run, but I get the feeling he won't be beholden to the wishes of his financial supporters as many pols are.
That said, would I vote for him? No. Mainly because I don't fully trust him. He's more of a showman than a statesman. His messages resonate, but they are delivered in a "non-presidential" way. Also, I had occasion to glean a bit of insight (secondhand knowledge) into how his companies do business back in the 90's. Nothing illegal or unethical, but not the type of way I would do business. Let's just say that was my first seed of doubt of his trustworthiness.
What I don't understand is why everyone doesn't want someone like him. Maybe with different viewpoints, maybe a little more diplomatic, but we need someone in the White House (and in Congress, too, but that's a post for another day!) who doesn't need to "play the game," so to speak, if we are ever going to see substantive change for the better in this country.
Quote: ams288Liberals aren't telling the right who they should run.... They are stating facts about who has the best chance of winning a general election.
What are these "facts"?
Quote: RonCWhat are these "facts"?
Poll numbers.
Specifically Donald Trump's unfavorables, which I mentioned in the post (but you edited out of the quote).
Quote: RonCI believe that you are wrong. National politics, the actions of those elected and unelected in Washington, do impact all of us. Yes, your life will go on but will the government waste more or less of your hard-earned tax dollars? Will they take more power from the States or not?
There are people in situations where whoever is president can directly affect their lives.
Soldiers
people on ACA
somebody trying to get an abortion
ect
I was referring to myself, I am not a soldier, not on ACA, not involved in any abortions.
My life will hardly change regardless who is President
Quote: RonC
I am not saying that EVERY person doesn't have a right to have an opinion, but I have every right to have one, too.
Absolutely, you are generally a straight shooter. I read your opinions. Lately you have been making a lot more sense then AZ.
You generally come back with good thought out conservative arguments. Keep it up.
Quote: RonC
I think liberals/democrats telling republicans who the best candidate is does not serve republicans at all.
I agree.
You have 2 choices, don't listen or listen but ignore.
Quote: RonC
Too many people think they have "facts" but they really have "opinions"...
Its all opinions here. This message board is not going to solve the worlds problems.
This thread simply gives libs and conservatives a vehicle to discuss the latest concerning the upcoming election.
Its all talk and opinion here.
Quote: ams288
You honestly think the Republicans have been running less and less conservative candidates? Huh?
Anyone with any sense can see this clearly. Not sure where anyone gets the idea that they have not been.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnyone with any sense can see this clearly. Not sure where anyone gets the idea that they have not been.
Ronald Reagan looks like a massive liberal compared to today's crop of righties. Anyone with any sense can see this clearly.
Quote: IbeatyouracesNo clue why any of you bother. None of you will change the other persons mind. Just like arguing AP with PGDan. Waste of time and energy.
It really has nothing to do with changing anybodys mind
Its the back and forth argument counter argument that I enjoy.
Each side is trying to show the other side how illogical their position is.
Its stimulating intellectually.
The robust conversations back and forth on each side is fun and entertaining
Quote: ams288Ronald Reagan looks like a massive liberal compared to today's crop of righties. Anyone with any sense can see this clearly.
That is liberal nonsense. Reagan would fit with 90%+ of todays GOP. Liberals think otherwise just because Reagan compromised on an issue or two. Liberals like saying this to mask their own leftward shift since the late-1960s.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat is liberal nonsense. Reagan would fit with 90%+ of todays GOP. Liberals think otherwise just because Reagan compromised on an issue or two. Liberals like saying this to mask their own leftward shift since the late-1960s.
Yep. The liberals have shifted left and the righties have stayed in the same place. Sure. I believe it.
Maybe it's because the country has shifted left? I mean, there's gotta be a reason Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 Presidential elections?
It certainly couldn't be because Republicans have shifted right and only satisfy their shrinking base.... No way.
Maybe it's because of voter fraud? Acorn? Planned Parenthood?
Quote: ams288Yep. The liberals have shifted left and the righties have stayed in the same place. Sure. I believe it.
Glad you believe it.
Quote:Maybe it's because the country has shifted left? I mean, there's gotta be a reason Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 Presidential elections?
I don't think the country has shifted as much as you think. Since 1964 the Democrat candidate has gotten a majority just three times. In 2008 Obama had the rare feat of being a sitting POTUS getting elected with less votes and less margin as when he was first elected.
Dems sure have moved to the left, though.
Quote: AZDuffmanIn 2008 Obama had the rare feat of being a sitting POTUS getting elected with less votes and less margin as when he was first elected.
Obama was NOT sitting president in 2008. LOL.
You keep saying Trump won't run third party and I hope he doesn't. He is not serious about being president. If he was serious, I wouldn't have a problem with 3rd party run, but to run just to screw repubs, like he might do is childish. But I wouldn't be so sure he won't, if I were you. As I said, NO ONE holds a grudge like this man.
I could see him running third party, getting 8-10 percent of the vote, Bush losing within that margin, and then Trump holding a press conference declaring himself the winner because that's what his goal was. He is THAT egotistical.
Quote: AZDuffmanGlad you believe it.
I don't think the country has shifted as much as you think. Since 1964 the Democrat candidate has gotten a majority just three times. In 2008 Obama had the rare feat of being a sitting POTUS getting elected with less votes and less margin as when he was first elected.
Dems sure have moved to the left, though.
JFK favored lowering the taxes from a war time high of 91% to a reasonable 65%. Tax cuts or tax raises are neither inherently bad or good you have to look at what the tax rate at the time is and what the proposed new rate is. Do you honestly think we should just keep cutting taxes and never raise them? What happens when we get to 0% do we start going negative tax rate?
Also Republicans of today are more conservative than Nixon who favored the EPA, opened relations with China, and increased entitlement spending. The only part where he wasn't most definitely more liberal than any candidate running today was civil rights.
Also if you want to go the democrats are super liberal now because some of them propose minor increases in the tax rate Reagan raised taxes several times. As governor of California he signed pro choice legislation and while he spoke about being pro life while running for presidency he didn't take up any pro life positions. He was in favor of gun control. He negotiated nuclear treaties with the Soviet Union. Passed environmental regulations. Any one of those things would almost be enough to sink him in a modern GOP primary.
During the debate last night you had legitimate candidates vying for office talking about how we should be in perpetual war with the Middle East. Not one even considered any form of negotiations. You have candidates who say any restriction on guns is horrible and they refuse to pass any restrictions of any kind.
Bob Dole says the GOP has gone incredibly right compared to when he was in office. There is no statesmanship left in the GOP. Yeah Reagan compromised as did every president before him that is simply how things get done and yet now that kind of ideological impurity is enough to get you branded a RINO and nearly kicked off the stage. Heck look how much flack got for hugging Obama and thanking the federal government for helping the Sandy Restoration effort.
Quote: kewljObama was NOT sitting president in 2008. LOL.
Good man, you caught my typo!
Quote:I could see him running third party, getting 8-10 percent of the vote, Bush losing within that margin, and then Trump holding a press conference declaring himself the winner because that's what his goal was. He is THAT egotistical.
You need ground support to even get on the ballot. I do not see Trump putting in the cash and effort there.
Which brings me to this fantastic audio clip of Trump pretending to be pro-life. His act is very unconvincing. Howard Stern certainly didn't fall for it. Said Stern: “I know you. There is no way that you, personally, are against abortion." (As recently as 1999, Trump said he didn't want third trimester partial birth abortion banned.)
It's hard to keep track of Trump's politics, because he's changed parties five times. A man with sincere convictions.
What a troll. Millions of devout Republicans will be voting for a pro-choicer, but they're in denial about it.
Quote: AZDuffman
You need ground support to even get on the ballot. I do not see Trump putting in the cash and effort there.
Not sure that is true. One of the major news stations ( am not sure which one because I flip back and forth so much) was saying that it is a lot easier today than it was back when Ross Perot ran because the internet can play such a big role getting signatures and such. The estimate was that a person could get on the ballot in all 50 states for 50-60 million dollars. That is a drop in the bucket for Trump if he gets agitated and wants to spite the republican party.
Since he wouldn't be really trying to win the election, he might not even try to get on the ballet in all 50 states, just some key states where he could do well and cost a Jeb Bush, if that was his goal.
I would not have antagonized him last night as I think Fox news did, with the blessing of the RNC. I would have just left him alone and let him implode and fade away on his own, which he surely will.
Leading is a great thing, and we should strive for cleaner air, but the leadership needs to be on the world stage and not just at home. Get China to do something similar; maybe we'll fix some air and get competitive prices. Absent that, we've created a policy that won't help very much and will cost more.
Nixon did want the EPA. I get that. Did he imagine what it would become and how it would be used?
Some things we want don't turn out exactly as planned...
Quote: RonCLet's talk about the EPA. Like any potentially "goof" thing, it can get out of hand. These latest restrictions that are to be placed on carbon emissions are a perfect example of fixing a very minor piece of the problem and costing Americans tons more in higher energy costs. We are operating in a vacuum and literally being sucked in by a President telling us how great of a plan it is when it does very, very little to actually clean the air.
Leading is a great thing, and we should strive for cleaner air, but the leadership needs to be on the world stage and not just at home. Get China to do something similar; maybe we'll fix some air and get competitive prices. Absent that, we've created a policy that won't help very much and will cost more.
Nixon did want the EPA. I get that. Did he imagine what it would become and how it would be used?
Some things we want don't turn out exactly as planned...
I'm not believing anything a cigarette smoker tells me about clean air.
Quote: kewlj
I would not have antagonized him last night as I think Fox news did, with the blessing of the RNC. I would have just left him alone and let him implode and fade away on his own, which he surely will.
Foxnews absolutely antagonized Trump last nite.
Trump is furious.
He really let loose on twitter ranting on Megan.
Right at the start, Fox made a point of separating Trump from all the other candidates by making him raise his hand regarding an independent run.
Trump may run independent just to spite fox.
Maybe this is what Ailes wants.
Seems the more pissed conservatives are, the more they watch his network.
As to RonC wanting to talk about EPA.
I'd rather breath our air with an EPA then that disgusting air in Beijing with no EPA
Overall, don't keep up with EPA regs so I am kind of dumb/uneducated on the nuances of the regs so that's why I don't talk EPA, sorry RonC
been coming unglued at Trump's success in the
polls. They mock and make fun of him, and he just
does better and better.
Last night that nasty skank Megyn Kelly took aim
with her first question and tried to blow him out of
the water. Nothing he said last night hurt him, no
matter what Fox said after it was over. In every single
poll I've read, Trump killed. Time, Slate, Drudge, on
and on, Trump got 3 times the votes than anybody
else. He lost with every network analyst, with every
political pundit, they hated him. But he's a big winner
with the voters.
Here's why. Every other moving mouth on that stage
came across as pure bullcrapping politician, right down
to his core. Numbers numbers numbers and I did this
and that and my poopy no stinky.
Trump did none of that. He was just The Donald, and
people know him and love him. I still say he has no intention
of being president, this is all about promoting his brand.
He's the original self promoter, who else puts his name
on everything he builds, in letters 20 feet high.
I know this, he's the only guy on that stage I would have
dinner with.
Quote: EvenBobI know this, he's the only guy on that stage I would have
dinner with.
I'd like to have dinner with Trump.
Trump with control of the football?
I'm not so sure...
It is easy to be against everyone and say nothing,
which is pretty much what I saw.
I'll have more interest when he decides
to flesh some plans on "how" he plans to do things.
I can say I will build a wall with Mexico's money...
what does that mean?
No more foreign aid? Tariffs? Take the drug money we
seize and use it?
At the end of the day, I want a candidate who thinks
he will win but plans on helping the party, too.
Dinner? Yes.
President? Nee more information on all of them.
people watched the debate, it blew all other
debates out of the water. In August, the least
viewed TV month of the year. Everybody is
on vacay, or in the backyard, or out riding
their bike. Yet that many people tuned in.
What does it mean? Nobody cares about
Thump THAT much. It means they know we're
in trouble, that they're worried, that we have
to turn things around. Those viewer numbers
are scaring a lot of people in politics because
it's looks bad for the status quo next year.
Quote: EvenBobHas anybody thought about this? 24 million
people watched the debate, it blew all other
debates out of the water. In August, the least
viewed TV month of the year. Everybody is
on vacay, or in the backyard, or out riding
their bike. Yet that many people tuned in.
What does it mean? Nobody cares about
Thump THAT much. It means they know we're
in trouble, that they're worried, that we have
to turn things around. Those viewer numbers
are scaring a lot of people in politics because
it's looks bad for the status quo next year.
I believe the ratings.
Its Trump baby
Only debate I have ever watched start to finish
Quote: EvenBobHas anybody thought about this? 24 million
people watched the debate, it blew all other
debates out of the water. In August, the least
viewed TV month of the year. Everybody is
on vacay, or in the backyard, or out riding
their bike. Yet that many people tuned in.
What does it mean? Nobody cares about
Thump THAT much. It means they know we're
in trouble, that they're worried, that we have
to turn things around. Those viewer numbers
are scaring a lot of people in politics because
it's looks bad for the status quo next year.
I just saw this. 24 million is what a top-rated sitcom gets. It is 50% more than watch MNF. This may be by far the most watched cable show of all time by a mile. Previous was The Walking Dead' Season 5 Premiere. With 17.3 million viewers, last night's season five premiere of AMC's “The Walking Dead” was the highest rated show in cable television history.
The 2012 POTUS debates drew about 65 million. Think on that. POTUS debate, on several channels, with the election just a month away. This is on one channel, early, no election in months, and it gets 1/3 as much?
However, it wouldn't be any different if Charlie Sheen showed up on the middle podium.
The promise of "spectacle" is always a draw.
Quote: rxwineI thought it would get high ratings for a debate
It got high ratings for ANYTHING.
It cannot be all-Trump effect.
Quote: EvenBob
I know this, he's the only guy on that stage I would have
dinner with.
And what do you think you would order for dinner? :/
Quote: AZDuffmanIt got high ratings for ANYTHING.
It cannot be all-Trump effect.
Everybody knows who Trump is, they watched
him for 10 years firing people. He's the only
person that every single person can name as
a candidate in street polls. It's not Trump
that people tuned in to see. Something else
is going on. Lets see how many watch the first
Dem debate.
Quote: EvenBobIt's not Trump
that people tuned in to see.
Really? I expect the ratings would have been pretty low without him.
Quote: kewljAnd what do you think you would order for dinner? :/
If Trump was paying, a 32oz ribeye, grilled brussel
sprouts, a loaf of garlic bread and an expensive
bottle of red wine.
This: http://www.bonappetit.com/recipe/grilled-brussels-sprouts-with-chanterelles
Quote: EvenBobIf Trump was paying, a 32oz ribeye, grilled brussel
sprouts, a loaf of garlic bread and an expensive
bottle of red wine.
This: http://www.bonappetit.com/recipe/grilled-brussels-sprouts-with-chanterelles
Nice. 32 oz. That's like 2 pounds. Hope you are taking some home. lol
Quote: kewljNice. 32 oz. That's like 2 pounds. Hope you are taking some home. lol
Some nicer places serve a 48oz. It's a fatty
steak, that's why it tastes so good.
Quote: EvenBobSome nicer places serve a 48oz. It's a fatty
steak, that's why it tastes so good.
Then you will need plenty of that heart healthy red wine to negate the effects. :)
they all agreed Fiorina won the first debate, and
cited Twitter and other sources where the public
thought she won also.
On the 6pm news tonight, not one mention that
Trump won overwhelmingly in every single poll
since last night. For the whole hour not a single
mention of a winner, though they mentioned
Fiorina several times as winning the first debate.
Finally, at the very end, a couple panelists said
Rubio maybe won. But no mention of the polls.
They did spend 5min mocking and making fun
of Trump, though. They don't like him because
he's a wild card, he's not their choice so they
don't want him to be the people's choice.
600,000 voted in the Drudge poll and Trump
got 45% of the vote. The closest to him was
in the teens. That's huge and not a mention
on Fox.
Quote: EvenBob
600,000 voted in the Drudge poll and Trump
got 45% of the vote. The closest to him was
in the teens. That's huge and not a mention
on Fox.
Voluntary polls are completely unprojectable.
Quote: EvenBobFoxNews is so full of crap sometimes. Yesterday
they all agreed Fiorina won the first debate, and
cited Twitter and other sources where the public
thought she won also.
On the 6pm news tonight, not one mention that
Trump won overwhelmingly in every single poll
since last night. For the whole hour not a single
mention of a winner, though they mentioned
Fiorina several times as winning the first debate.
Finally, at the very end, a couple panelists said
Rubio maybe won. But no mention of the polls.
They did spend 5min mocking and making fun
of Trump, though. They don't like him because
he's a wild card, he's not their choice so they
don't want him to be the people's choice.
600,000 voted in the Drudge poll and Trump
got 45% of the vote. The closest to him was
in the teens. That's huge and not a mention
on Fox.
Great post evenbob, I totally agree
OMG, I just complemented evenbob.
Well, what can I say, I totally agree with him on this one.
Its nice that Conservative Trump supporters see Fox for what it really is, that they are not fair and balanced.
Looks like the decision at Fox news is to push Carly into the top 10 and push Trump out.
They will try to manipulate their news reporting to achieve that objective
Quote: AZDuffmanVoluntary polls are completely unprojectable.
The point is, they mentioned them when it
applied to Fiorina as to who won the debate,
and ignored them with Trump.
Quote: terapined
They will try to manipulate their news reporting to achieve that objective
It was so obvious tonight, it was ridiculous. They
have been getting and more more like that. They
aren't Left of Right, they have their own agenda.
They want to decide who we vote for, just like all
the other news outlets. They weren't always like
this.
I don't know if it's going to be Trump, but be really do need a top notch business person running the Country, not a lifelong politician.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13
I don't know if it's going to be Trump, but be really do need a top notch business person running the Country, not a lifelong politician.
ZCore13
Why do people keep saying this? There have been 4 successful businessmen presidents: Hoover, Harding, Johnson, and H.W. Bush. Of those only 1 is not ranked in the bottom half of presidents. The other 3 are arguably some of the worst presidents the US has ever seen. Johnson is often ranked as the worst president the US has ever seen.
Being adept at one thing does not translate to acumen in any other field. Great businessmen don't often make great statesmen because the entire climate is drastically different.
Quote: TwirdmanWhy do people keep saying this? There have been 4 successful businessmen presidents: Hoover, Harding, Johnson, and H.W. Bush. Of those only 1 is not ranked in the bottom half of presidents. The other 3 are arguably some of the worst presidents the US has ever seen. Johnson is often ranked as the worst president the US has ever seen.
Being adept at one thing does not translate to acumen in any other field. Great businessmen don't often make great statesmen because the entire climate is drastically different.
First, the current President will surely be compared to Johnson when historians look back.
Second, I don't want a great statesman. I want someone who can stand up for the U.S. when it comes to trade deals, immigration, radical Islam, North Korea and Russia and Socialists that think giving away benefits is the way to encourage people to improve.
Maybe not a businessman then. A leader. I want a leader of the people into success.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13First, the current President will surely be compared to Johnson when historians look back.
ZCore13
Really? Really?!! To believe that Obama will go down and be remembered as anywhere remotely comparable to Andrew Johnson shows you either have a tremendous lack of knowledge of history or a tremendous lack of awareness of the current world around you.
Quote: Zcore13First, the current President will surely be compared to Johnson when historians look back.
Did you watch the debate?
Did you notice what was missing?
Where were the "I will repeal Obamacare" rants?
Except for Kasich, it was hardly discussed.
It should be called the affordable care act but Obama was given a gift with everybody using Obamacare.
Your average American may not know Roosevelt started Social Security 80 years ago.
year 2095, 80 years from now, Obamacare will be just as entrenched as social security.
No doubt kids in 2095 will be totally aware of what President started Obamacare.
Quote: TwirdmanReally? Really?!! To believe that Obama will go down and be remembered as anywhere remotely comparable to Andrew Johnson shows you either have a tremendous lack of knowledge of history or a tremendous lack of awareness of the current world around you.
You mean a world where racial tensions in the U.S. are the highest in decades or a world where Radical Muslims are allowed to murder anyone they want and the President won't even say the word Muslim to refer to them. Or a world where prospective employees tell me they don't want to work because it's better for them to get free cell phone, free health insurance, free food and subsidized housing and if they have another baby they'll get even more. Or maybe the world where the U.S. Customs laws and border make no difference and after someone commits a crime by sneaking into our Country we can't ask them for ID if they want to vote and they can have free health coverage too. And we'll then print Government documents and signs in their language to accommodate them. Or maybe the world where healthy people are forced to purchase health insurance at an inflated price to cover those that are unhealthy. Or the world where we give billions of dollars to Countries that don't support us while our neighbor to the South can't stop their residents from wanting to leave and with just a little assistance and leadership could probably become a thriving economy.
This is the world I live in. A broken world with no leader to lead us out of it. What world do you live in?
Zcore13
Now 24 hours later, I am just astonished at what I am reading and hearing. No surprise that Trump thinks he won. That was to be expected. But it seems quite a number of legitimate news sources, both print and TV, think Trump did well, even using the word 'won'. My own reaction is what the hell were they watching?
The numbers released of 24 million viewers making it the largest audience to watch a cable show are stunning and no doubt, that was ALL about Trump. A debate in the summertime months, when people are doing other things, vacations, late evenings outdoors, 6 months before the first caucuses and primaries, with a field of 17, would normally draw squat, only the hardcore political junkies. The number of folks that tuned in because of Donald Trump's participation, is just astonishing.
Despite everything being said today, I still expect him to fall in the polls because of this performance. If that turns out to not be the case and he rises in the polls, then all bets are off. We could have entered into some strange, new unknown territory of which myself, right along with many others have no idea where we are headed. I am going to be real interested in the new polls next week.
Quote: kewljSo last night after the debate, I posted my thoughts (page 304 of this thread). The second line of my thoughts was "Trump - Done, at least as far as a republican candidate".
Now 24 hours later, I am just astonished at what I am reading and hearing. No surprise that Trump thinks he won. That was to be expected. But it seems quite a number of legitimate news sources, both print and TV, think Trump did well, even using the word 'won'. My own reaction is what the hell were they watching?
The numbers released of 24 million viewers making it the largest audience to watch a cable show are stunning and no doubt, that was ALL about Trump. A debate in the summertime months, when people are doing other things, vacations, late evenings outdoors, 6 months before the first caucuses and primaries, with a field of 17, would normally draw squat, only the hardcore political junkies. The number of folks that tuned in because of Donald Trump's participation, is just astonishing.
Despite everything being said today, I still expect him to fall in the polls because of this performance. If that turns out to not be the case and he rises in the polls, then all bets are off. We could have entered into some strange, new unknown territory of which myself, right along with many others have no idea where we are headed. I am going to be real interested in the new polls next week.
8 times the viewers than the first debate of 2011.
On a related note, our Poker Room had about 30% less players for our Thursday night 6pm tournament than normal. Will be intesting to see next week if it was the debate or that school started in the area.
ZCore13
Quote: kewljSo last night after the debate, I posted my thoughts (page 304 of this thread). The second line of my thoughts was "Trump - Done, at least as far as a republican candidate".
Evaluations of performance of "won" or "lost" are definitely dependent on what your were looking for or expected. Same with everyone.
Quote: kewlj
Despite everything being said today, I still expect him to fall in the polls because of this performance.
He killed in every single unofficial poll today.
And I mean he blew them away. What makes
you think the official polls will be any different.
You saw last night what you wanted to see.
You should be happy, all Dems are saying
Trump is a gift to their side, easy to beat.
People remember going head over heels for
a politician in 2008 and the know what a
disaster that turned out to be. They're
sick to death of professional liars like Obummer.
Republicans are pushing and almost insuring that Trump will run third party. Funny stuff.
Meanwhile odds for a democrat winning the presidency have shot up at Bovada from -150 to -200 in the last 24 hours.
