If for no other reason than to unite this country again after Obama.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/...ed-outside-of-trump-rally-in-califo/21353011/
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/...ed-outside-of-trump-rally-in-califo/21353011/
We need a President Trump
- Thread starter TheCainer
- Start date
So you're blaming Trump for a bunch of protestors' actions? Yes, and Obama has been a great uniter, hasn't he? Black vs. White, Gay vs. Straight, Muslim vs. Christian, Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life, Female vs. Male. Obama and the Democrats are the worst when it comes to identity politics. They are incredibly divisive, and HRC is only doubling down on that rhetoric.
No sane country has an open border where people can flow in with impunity. If these Mexican protestors want to become citizens, then they can try to come into the US the same way that your ancestors did and mine did - legally. They act like they're owed something by the legal citizens of this nation. They are not.
Last edited:
Why are liberals using violence and trying to silence free speech?
Just so I'm clear...those divides you mentioned are only there because of Democrats?
Really?
Bush ran in 2004 on gay marriage opposition. Karl Rove made it a central part of his strategy, particularly in Ohio but in about a dozen states. Anti gay marriage platforms were pushed in multiples states timed to the GE in 04 precisely to drive out the conservative Christian vote.
Lee Atwater came up with the "Southern Strategy" which was aimed at disaffected southern white voters unhappy with the civil rights movement.
Prop 8 in California?
Come on. I could name divisive, separating policies and strategies by republicans til my fingers turn raw from typing.
As for the border. Which nation/federation has better race relations right now. The one with a much more open (relatively speaking) immigration policy and external border policy, or the one with a much more restrictive and closed external border policy between the US and Europe?
Yes, people flow in with impunity (except for the fact that arrests and deportations are higher under Obama than at any other time, or that Reagan did an amnesty)...and the vast majority of those people then keep their heads down, build our stuff for cheap, pick our food for cheap, help drive the costs of both down, and otherwise provide us with a very cheap labor force.
My ancestors were forced against their will into this country, but I suppose that was "legally" at the time. Plenty of other folks ancestors came in "illegally." We took half of this nation by force of arms, treachery, deceit, reneging on treaties, and massacres. I don't think we want to start extolling the virtues of our conduct in the 18th and 19th centuries.
As for identity politics, yes it does cut both ways. But under Obama and recently under HRC, the rhetoric of identity politics has only gotten worse.
As to the border policy of the US and the European Union. The EU's issues have little to do with their border policy. The mass exodus from the Middle East to the EU is a concerted effort by some of the "powers that be" to change the complexion and make-up of the EU permanently. It is a (somewhat) non-violent war on the EU's institutions, and the leaders in the EU are complicit in what is happening. Because of the laws of the EU, the people have almost no say in this travesty against Western European civilization.
What is happening in Europe is analogous to what has happened to the US with the Mexicans and Central Americans, but it's with a different, generally more easy-to-assimilate demographic.
Sure, it's gotten worse in the last eight years, but you argue causation vice correlation with no real evidence other than you really don't like either of them.
And we have never been "under" HRC. She's been out of political office for the last four years. Bit much to blame her for anything to do with race or gender relations. She certainly had little to do with either as SOS.
I'm also pretty sure NO President has a significant effect one way or the other on the state of race or gender relations in a nation of 300 million plus people that has 400 years of...ahem, interesting...history on race relations and has lagged behind most of the developed western world in things like women in leadership, equal pay, etc.
The mass exodus from the ME (AND Africa) is due to poverty and unrest. Just like everywhere else when folks en masse leave their homes and lands for what they perceive to be a better situation. It's not something folks do lightly, and it's not some planned war by those folks to change the EU or "Western European civilization."
It's to escape poverty, violence, and unrest. Just like why folks from Central America and Mexico come here.
The difference is, we've been dealing with racial relations for most of our history as a nation. We've stumbled our way to more tolerance, and better learned how to accept in and make work folks from different backgrounds.
Europe has neither, and has done neither, and they are struggling to integrate where we are not nearly as much.
I don't want to interupt a 1:1 debate you may be having. However, I'm curious: are you espousing the perspective that the "rhetoric of identity politics" was initiated or significantly escalated by Obama or H. Clinton?
Significantly escalated by Obama and continued by HRC in her campaign for President. Based on what she's said so far, she will basically continue what Obama started if she becomes President.
I say you're wrong. In her campaign, she plays the "identity politics" theme all the time. In essence, she vows to continue down the path Obama has forged. Now she is a lying, hypocritical POS, so she may very well not follow through on her campaign promises and just pander to certain demographics in order to curry favor and get votes in the election.
With regard to the ME, the seeds for the mass exodus were sown by the desire for regime change (Syria) and "premature evacuation" (Iraq) perpetrated by the Obama Administration, in which HRC was an important part as SOS in his first term. She helped to cause the mass exodus by developing a policy to leave Iraq before it was secure and before the Iraqis could reasonably run the country themselves. When the Iraqis failed miserably, causing a power vaccum, Daesh filled the void and then started moving into Syria too after the attempt to oust Assad. This is what drove these people to the EU. The crappy policies she helped create helped to cause this catastrophe.
She did the same thing in Libya by removing Khaddafi, and now Daesh has set up shop there too.
You could also argue that she helped to destabilize Egypt as well by helping to promote the Arab Spring and bringing Morsi to power.
You try to make it sound like the ME exodus to the EU was due to some economic downturn or famine. No, it was systematically perpetrated directly causing the EU to be overrun in order to flee the horrific terror of Daesh. Without Obama and Clinton doing regime change and "premature evacuation", Daesh would never have gotten into power and the migration would never have happened to anywhere near the scale it ultimately did, if at all. The Obama Adminstration and the other "powers that be" decided to play God and now most of the Western world has to suffer because of it.
I agree. There is a strong anti-Establishment sentiment in the country right now and it cuts across the left-right spectrum. It is amazing to me that Bernie Sanders beat Clinton again tonight. I believe I heard that she has won 23 states and he has won 19. She will win the Democrat nomination, but he's made her sweat every step of the way with a Socialist message.
Some people like to bash Trump on here but he's read the political winds very well. And anyone who says he has no shot to win the Election isn't paying attention. Clinton is weak and is very vulnerable.
The thought that Trump can unite is is laughable. He will divide us further and it's not debatable
He's read the political winds in a single party relatively well, and even then barely to fifty percent.
How's he going to get Hispanics? Women? He's losing married women by 12 pts to Hillary. Obama lost them by 7 to Romney. That's a 19-pt swing right now. Let's say he cuts that by 66 percent, She's still way ahead of the game compared to Obama. I have no idea what he is losing single women by. AAs? lol Hispanics? Bush got 40 percent and barely won in 04, Trump isn't coming within ten points of that. Millennials? lol Granted they suck at coming out for off year elections but they are decent enough coming out for presidential elections.
They are going to play all the nasty, vile things he has said about women and minorities on loops all over this country. The only way Trump wins is if every demographic except white men decide to just not come out to vote.
Ya! and hillary was up on bernie by 8 in indiana! Polls decide elections! Dewey defeats Truman!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39
Yes, Hillary is doing so well that she keeps losing to Bernie Sanders. You just assume that the people who have come out to vote for Bernie will automatically vote for Clinton. Every day I see more and more Bernie supporters on TV saying that they do not like Hillary Clinton and will likely not vote for her, if they vote at all. Certainly, it is not wise to assume that these people will swing to Trump, but if millions of Bernie people sit out, Hillary's in deeper trouble than she already is.
Recent polls show Trump anywhere from being in the lead (2 points) to being down 3 points. The one where he's in the lead was taken with people who only have landlines, so it probably doesn't represent the general electorate too well.
There are droves of "Reagan democrats" and people who haven't voted for years that are gravitating to Trump. There is evidence that people are dropping Democrat registrations and becoming Independent or Republican, especially in places like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
You keep bringing up Romney, but he had almost zero traction on the East Coast and in California. Trump may not win these states but he's going to get one hell of a lot more votes in these states than Romney did.
I don't know how many times I have to say this but this is the year of the Anti-Establishment Candidate. Hillary is the epitome of the Establishment. She has an incredible amount of baggage and Trump is going to club her over the head with it every chance he gets.
Hillary for Prison 2016!!!
The reality is he is behind. Polls don't matter. They matter even less in the GE where it's all about individual states. He needs an electoral map path. He needs to turn most of the midwest red, FL which I think he will take, and then win one state he's not projected to take like PA, OH, NJ or VA. Though I doubt VA, the asian population is too high. Then he has a path. Hillary is looking good right now on the electoral map.
If you weren't already aware of this site, it's got a nice map to play with: http://www.270towin.com/
Last edited:
Polling in Indiana wasn't done til late because of a quirk in Indiana laws that makes polling Indiana expensive. Also, Indiana is rarely polled anyways because it is rarely a swing state.
But if you want to believe the polling is meaningless...feel free. I'm fine with your ultimate disappointed being a surprise vice something you saw coming. Either way makes no difference to me.
Really? She's losing to Bernie? She doesn't have 3 million more votes, hasn't won more pledged delegates or even more states?
Huh, who knew?
Yes, i assume that most people who come out to vote for Bernie will end up voting for Hillary. It's a pretty safe assumption. 40% of Hillary supporters in 08 said they weren't going to vote for Obama in polling. Then guess what, they almost all ended up voting for Obama. Because Hillary did the right thing and brought the party together. Bernie will too eventually because he's already said he ain't doing anything to let Trump win, and neither will his supporters.
"recent polls" show Trump losing badly save ONE from Rasmussen, the worst poller out there.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#!
The last five polls that aren't Rasmussen average her being up 8.2 pts...even with Rasmussen tossed in she averages being up 6.2. So no, recent polls do not show Trump anywhere from up 3 to down 2, they actually show him being anywhere from up 3 to down 13, and that down 13 is the most recent poll. In fact, ignoring Rasmussen she has led in the last 23 (TWENTY THREE) polls that have come out.
There are no "Reagan Democrats." Reagan Democrats LONG AGO became Republicans.
This is the year of the anti-establishment candidate for republicans. It is clearly NOT the year of that for Democrats or else she wouldn't be 3 million votes up, and she wouldn't be
By the way, who has more total overall votes thus far in the primaries...Trump, or Hillary?
Hillary is sitting at 242 with just solid blue states. Those states are not turning to Trump. Those states have voted Dem going back a generation.
Trump will start at 180 with solid red states.
Hillary just needs FL to win. That's it. She can lose NH, and OH, and PA, and NC, and CO, and VA, and NV, and every other swing state, and Hillary just needs to win FL and she wins it.
OR, she can lose FL, and just win PA or OH or NC or VA and one other state and she wins it.
She doesn't need to lead married women by 12 like she is now, she can lose that entire lead, and then lose 7 more % points and she'd be at where Obama was against Romney.
You appear to not understand the structural setup on the EC demographically that gives a very strong natural advantage to Dems running for President.
so...the poll wasn't scientific? and thus garbage? pretty sure that was exactly my point. lol
Explain to me why Republican voting is UP 60% in this election cycle and Democrat voting is DOWN 35%. It's because of Trump (at least for the Rs, and Obama is not running again for the Ds.) Shillary has a lack of energy behind her campaign, at least in comparison to what Obama had, especially in 2008. There is no denying this. I am no fan of Obama, but he certainly was good at getting out the vote and bringing out the energy of his voting base.
If this were a "typical" election cycle, I would totally agree with you about the delegate map. 2008 and 2012 were more typical, at least because of the candidates the Republicans ran against Obama. McCain and Romney were horrible choices and both ran way too far right for the country's liking. And they were Establishment politicians. Trump is not these guys. He's not an Establishment politician - a big plus in "The year of Anti-Establishment Candidate". Clinton is the epitome of a Democrat Establishment candidate.
Polls right now showing Hillary vs. Trump are pretty much meaningless, and they won't matter until after the conventions, if not later in the summer.
Please keep ringing up states in the HRC column (in May). You are setting yourself up for a rude awakening, because the mood of the country is angry and Establishment politicians like Hillary are not in favor right now. Not to mention she is a weak candidate with some health problems, has a ton of personal and political baggage, and is the target of an on-going FBI investigation. Yup, she's a shoo-in alright.
Pulling out polls and relying and historical political patterns have most lots of so called experts look like foolish, rank amateurs the last 12 months so expecting everything to return to normalcy and all the disaffected Sanders and non Trump backers to suddenly morph into traditionalists is a good way to experience a big letdown.
Polling doesn't matter, but it can be an indicator. Personally, I think qaz is correct that Trump is going to have a really, really hard time beating Hillary for many of the reasons he cited. He's provided logical arguments about voters and voter trends, and the best arguments the rest of you have come up with are "Trump has proven everyone wrong!" and "Polls and trends don't matter."
If I were laying money on this election, I'd be heavy on Clinton. Trump's got a demographic problem he's got five months to solve. Maybe he can do it, I just don't think it's likely. A Republican candidate must be particularly strong to overcome the majority that Democrats hold in both popular and electoral college votes to start with (or the Democratic candidate must be particularly weak).
While I think Hillary is weak, I think Trump is as well and not strong enough to overcome the sheer volume of voters he needs to win.
I expect that this voter turnout will end up fairly low. That usually favors Republicans. I don't believe all the youngsters behind Bernie are going to go behind Hillary. I expect many of them will stay home.
That would be a boon for Trump, if he weren't likely to fight the same problem himself - that is, many Republicans who won't vote for him and will either stay home or vote for Hillary. Those factors probably cancel themselves out and you end up, again, with the numbers game... which goes to the Democrat.
I don't think Trump will be able to appeal to enough independents to win. I may be wrong, but I've seen nothing so far that indicates he can and will. Hillary, meanwhile, can just consolidate the Democratic vote as best she can, and that is enough for her to win.
If I were laying money on this election, I'd be heavy on Clinton. Trump's got a demographic problem he's got five months to solve. Maybe he can do it, I just don't think it's likely. A Republican candidate must be particularly strong to overcome the majority that Democrats hold in both popular and electoral college votes to start with (or the Democratic candidate must be particularly weak).
While I think Hillary is weak, I think Trump is as well and not strong enough to overcome the sheer volume of voters he needs to win.
I expect that this voter turnout will end up fairly low. That usually favors Republicans. I don't believe all the youngsters behind Bernie are going to go behind Hillary. I expect many of them will stay home.
That would be a boon for Trump, if he weren't likely to fight the same problem himself - that is, many Republicans who won't vote for him and will either stay home or vote for Hillary. Those factors probably cancel themselves out and you end up, again, with the numbers game... which goes to the Democrat.
I don't think Trump will be able to appeal to enough independents to win. I may be wrong, but I've seen nothing so far that indicates he can and will. Hillary, meanwhile, can just consolidate the Democratic vote as best she can, and that is enough for her to win.
No one at this point in 08 said "Obama can't put away Clinton" and she has a much much larger lead at this point. So when I read that I stop paying much attention. Bush won a third term in large part because his opponent sucked...same here.
qaz does have some points, but it's foolish for anyone to say that since recent previous elections have gone such-and-such way that it will hold to form again, when this election cycle is unlike any we've seen in our lifetimes.
Trump is turning conventional wisdom on its head. People laughed when Trump announced he was running. He beat 16 (17 if you include Jim Gilmore) other candidates - what qaz lovingly called the "Clown Car" for a while. The conventional wisdom said that Jeb Bush or maybe someone like Rubio would win the nomination. No one would have predicted when Trump announced that it would come down to Cruz and Trump and that Trump would ultimately win.
Trump is going do to Hillary what he's done to his Republican opponents. The more his Establishment opponents attack him, the stronger he seems to get. I hope Hillary starts going after Trump because it will only help him. Plus she's got a high unfavorable rating herself and is considered extremely untrustworthy by the majority of America.
I agree that turnout may be lower - on the Democrat side - because the young Sanders voters will either not vote or a few will go for Trump. The only Republicans who won't vote for Trump are what you call the true RWNJs and people like Tim Miller, Mitt Romney, and the Bushes. They are the true Republican establishment and Trump promises to destroy their personal gravy trains (they make money while the country suffers). This is the Republican 1% (at least that's what Bernie calls them). This is a small number of people when you get down to it. Most of these people can't stand the Clintons and would not vote for HRC. A few will sit out the election and a few will vote for her, but many more of the RWNJ types will still vote for Trump in the end than will go for Clinton or will sit out in protest.
I also think the AA will be down this time vs. 2008 and 2012. It will go overwhelmingly to HRC but it will be down.
I think there are a lot more Republicans unwilling to vote for Trump than you think... I'm not a RWNJ. I'm not 1%. I won't vote for Trump, and I know a number of my friends are with me on that, whether voting Hillary, Libertarian, or simply not voting. Now, that's all subject to change and maybe Trump will sway all of us over the course of the next few months... and maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt! Who knows?
The demographics do not favor Trump. That is not past elections. That is now. That is primaries. As I've said a few times before, there are about 20 million more registered Democrats in this country than Republicans. That's against him. Democrats start out with an electoral advantage by the states they are guaranteed to win (CA, NY, etc.). Trump's got a tough row to hoe and he's not starting from a strong position in winning the demographics and independents he needs to win the General.
His best bet, IMO, is a Hillary implosion. With the way the parties look right now - that is, Republicans not even backing Trump - I'd say that it is more likely Trump implodes. I believe the weight of all this stuff against him will catch up to him. It hasn't so far... maybe it won't. That'd be incredible, and incredible is pretty much what it's going to take for him to beat Hillary.
I'd handicap it 85% chance Hillary wins.
The demographics do not favor Trump. That is not past elections. That is now. That is primaries. As I've said a few times before, there are about 20 million more registered Democrats in this country than Republicans. That's against him. Democrats start out with an electoral advantage by the states they are guaranteed to win (CA, NY, etc.). Trump's got a tough row to hoe and he's not starting from a strong position in winning the demographics and independents he needs to win the General.
His best bet, IMO, is a Hillary implosion. With the way the parties look right now - that is, Republicans not even backing Trump - I'd say that it is more likely Trump implodes. I believe the weight of all this stuff against him will catch up to him. It hasn't so far... maybe it won't. That'd be incredible, and incredible is pretty much what it's going to take for him to beat Hillary.
I'd handicap it 85% chance Hillary wins.
I agree that Trump has a tough road to hoe and recent history would say that he has a large built-in disadvantage.
That said, the built-in disadvantage is somewhat mitigated by the fact the Trump does significantly better in places like the Northeast and Mid Atlantic states and the Midwest "Rust Belt" than people like Romney and McCain did. Some moderate Democrats are coming over to his side. Hillary certainly isn't going to win with coal miners. LOL
Personally, the Bushes and people like McCain and Romney not going to the convention are doing Trump a favor, because it only solidifies in people's minds that this is not the orthodox, Establishment Republican party in this election cycle. Republican voters are largely repudiating the Establishment and that only helps Trump in this Anti-Establishment election. HRC is trying to run against the grain in this cycle and that doesn't help her at all.
All this said, I'd put the odds right now at something like 70%-75% Hillary wins with the trend going against her increasingly. A few months ago I would have agreed with your 85%, not now.
It remains to be seen what will happen with the HRC email stuff. There is evidence that the FBI has extradited the Romanian hacker "Guccifer" and has deposed him. He claims that he hacked into Clinton's email server and around 10 others also did that he knows of. This can't be good for her. The FBI has also deposed some of her closest aides. Some in the media are claiming that there is enough evidence now to indict HRC. This remains to be seen, but once again, the trend is not in her favor and regardless will continue to hang over her campaign for the foreseeable future.
I don't think we have any idea how Trump does in those areas. There's a big difference between the primary and the general. Anecdotally, my wife was struck at how well Trump did in New York, and asked me if I though he could win the state. I told her to look at the number of votes. (I'm recalling this from memory) - at the time, I think Trump had like 800,000 votes, while Hillary had something like 3 million. So, I don't expect Trump to make a dent in the NE, California, Illinois... the usual. But he doesn't have to. What he has to do is win Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. Those are going to be tough nuts to crack for him, IMO, for reasons already stated.
The advantage Trump may have is that he's not a Republican. The problem is, no one really knows what he really thinks because he's been running around talking about the wall and all the other stuff he's not really going to (be able to) do.
If he wants my vote, he's got to do two things to start off with:
1) Renounce "The Wall."
2) Apologize to the Muslim community, or at least acknowledge that he was wrong to say what he did.
Since "The Wall" is central to his campaign, I doubt he'll ever get his foot in the door with me, though I'll point out those aren't the reasons I'm not voting for him. They're just part-and-parcel to it. He needs to change his tone and message to win my vote.
The advantage Trump may have is that he's not a Republican. The problem is, no one really knows what he really thinks because he's been running around talking about the wall and all the other stuff he's not really going to (be able to) do.
If he wants my vote, he's got to do two things to start off with:
1) Renounce "The Wall."
2) Apologize to the Muslim community, or at least acknowledge that he was wrong to say what he did.
Since "The Wall" is central to his campaign, I doubt he'll ever get his foot in the door with me, though I'll point out those aren't the reasons I'm not voting for him. They're just part-and-parcel to it. He needs to change his tone and message to win my vote.
Understand. I just cannot personally stomach the idea of voting for a corrupt, lying, shrill-voiced, bought-and-sold witch like HRC. She is the perfect example of exactly what is wrong with our nation's political class right now. (So are the Bushes and Mitt Romney.)
Not sure I get why "The Wall" sets you off so much. If a nation doesn't have border security you don't really have a nation, per se. Illegal immigrants are once again streaming over the border this year in levels similar to 2014. Now why is this? And why is our government allowing this to happen right now?
Because the wall would be pointless and wouldn't stop anything, for one thing, but more to the point it's his direct assault at a country to whom we should be tied very closely and not adversarial. This fear that Mexico is somehow gaining economic power that Trump seems to be leveraging against his constituents is irrational to the point of idiocy. Yep, they need us more that we need them, but when you start treating your friends like shit, see how that works out...
Why not build a wall with Canada? Oh, right, white skin.
Why not build a wall with Canada? Oh, right, white skin.
There's no evidence that millions of Canadians are running across the border in VT, etc., and into the US.
Right now, is Mexico really our friend? They send millions of illegals here, including criminals, such as the guy deported 5 times who killed Kate Steinle. They send endless supplies of drugs over the border. Their drug lords have border patrol agents killed and sometimes kill innocent civilians. They bleed jobs out of this country and with NAFTA, the US gets virtually nothing in return. The Mexican government is complicit in helping to bring our nation down.
They are our friend as long as they get what they want from us. Why is it wrong to demand that the US get better deals?
Isn't it time that the US follows a policy of fair trade, instead of free trade? Rampant free trade has done nothing but help to destroy broad swaths of our nation. It has helped other parts of our nation, too, but when you run regular trade deficits over $1T/yr, how does that help the USA overall?
Last edited:
LOL what a false narrative race baiting shit response. The wall is about frustration. It's about the negligence of people ignoring federal law and the undue burden it puts on the citizens of this country. You don't like the immigration laws? Then get your lazy **** up representatives to change them. There are federal regulations I don't like. Do I just get to do whatever I want? Seriously. What the ****.
Hmmmm . . . this board. I was hoping election season would make it more interesting. I guess not.
Yes because the best decisions are always made out of frustration... You guys are wonderful at setting up strawmen, truly.
Reading the gr8 quote in your reply a few times and I don't get where you see a racist bent, because he says nothing about race.
This is not something done in haste. This disgust with the Establishment (particularly the Republican Establishment) has been building for many years (even before Obama got elected to his first term and going back to the GWB days). What has happened is that Trump has given a strong voice to the concerns many Republicans have had and which the Republican Establishment has nearly completely ignored. The Democratic Establishment has basically refused to acknowledge it at all.
lol what Trump says no, really, I'll do all those things the others said they would do, like deport everyone, build a giant wall, etc etc...KNOWING full well (or maybe not, maybe he truly believes his own schtick) that he won't remotely deliver on what he promises EITHER.
If by some miracle Trump got elected, he'd do about 2 percent of all the wild ass stuff he's promised, and those folks would then be disgusted even more. Of course, there aren't enough of those folks to get him elected the first time so it's a moot point.
