Trump!!!

Mr. Deez said:
However, Bernie supporters are also politically correct liberals. Nothing would make them feel more guilty than backing someone they deem a racist or a sexist, and Trump for the most part does everything he can to reinforce those labels.
Click to expand...

Heard someone talking on the train this weekend that confirmed this a little. She was railing on how mean Trump supports were, and talked about the guy who wore the "Free Hugs" tshirt to the rallies, and how the Trump people were allegedly mean to him, and the Bernie people were all nice and hugged him and said he was welcome. And she mentioned how Bernie was going to do free college for everyone, and how she couldn't support a racist/bigot for president. And she made fun of her dad who was saying that Bernie is a socialist who was going to redistribute wealth. It was pretty textbook.
 
That's a lot of shekels
Not very difficult to think of some better uses ....


Choa-haXIAAzuBT.jpg
 
The more research I do, the less I understand why Cruz backed out before California, especially since Trump pretty much has to get 50.1% of the total delegates, or else he'd be likely to lose on later ballots when delegates from the other candidates are no long bound.

This. I believe much of what we saw was bluster and bravado DESIGNED to get people talking about him and to get the tons of free media coverage. And the more the press tried to make him out to be a bad guy, the MORE they got the masses talking about him. He became the name prospective voters paid attention to, no matter WHAT the polls were saying.
Click to expand...

Let's not pretend the press didn't know that all this would be the result. Now their favorite candidate is going to get a big boost.
 
Mr. Deez said:
A new Hillary Clinton ad. Very predictable.
Click to expand...

The script writes itself. That ad won't sway the Trump supporters. It validates their support. How large is the undecided crowd at this point? Given how polarized the electorate is, I think that crowd is much smaller than in recent elections.
 
JF
Interesting article. I was not a Trump supporter, still am not but I would vote for him.
he speaks pretty plainly and matter of factly about what he wants to do.
When he speaks about the companies he would call because they are moving out of the country and ways to recoup loss of jobs I wonder how different that is from what BO and Hillary have long called for? How can Hillary bash Trump for this when she has called out corporations for the same thing?
On muslim ban, isn't it a temporary ban until we have a better vetting system in place?

I did laugh at Vicente Fox trying to sweet talk Trump, asking him to visit Mexico to see how nice the people are. It has never been about how nice they are. It is about them breaking our laws. They can stay in Mexico and still be very nice.
going to be an interesting campaign for sure.
 
I have to laugh when comparing that Trump article with all the accusations of Obama's ruling by Executive Order. Clearly Trump is ready to rule by fiat. Republicans (not conservatives) are OK with authoritarianism as long as he has an "R" next to his name.
 
IF Trump gets elected and IF he in FACT rules by fiat we can discuss it at that time
For now you are what iffin'. I think in another post you ridiculed someone who speculated on what "might" happen
OTOH what BO has done using EO is fact and nothing to laugh about.
 
I think Trump could score big points by doing these 2 things:

1) Publicly declare that Hillary is running for POTUS and for her freedom because, if he is elected, he will ask his new AG to indict her for National Security breaches immediately. Declare that the era of politicians getting away with law-breaking that puts the rest of us in jail is over when he is elected.

2) Tell the public he will fix Obamacare by requiring all members of Congress to use it. Then say, "I guarantee they will fix it after that."
 
Phil Elliott said:
I think Trump could score big points by doing these 2 things:

1) Publicly declare that Hillary is running for POTUS and for her freedom because, if he is elected, he will ask his new AG to indict her for National Security breaches immediately. Declare that the era of politicians getting away with law-breaking that puts the rest of us in jail is over when he is elected.

2) Tell the public he will fix Obamacare by requiring all members of Congress to use it. Then say, "I guarantee they will fix it after that."
Click to expand...

I think both of those are great ideas.
 
Horn6721 said:
IF Trump gets elected and IF he in FACT rules by fiat we can discuss it at that time
For now you are what iffin'. I think in another post you ridiculed someone who speculated on what "might" happen
OTOH what BO has done using EO is fact and nothing to laugh about.
Click to expand...

Wait, we shouldn't be concerned about what kind of President they'll be before they take office?

Editors note: BO signed fewer EO's than his prior 2 predec
Horn6721 said:
IF Trump gets elected and IF he in FACT rules by fiat we can discuss it at that time
For now you are what iffin'. I think in another post you ridiculed someone who speculated on what "might" happen
OTOH what BO has done using EO is fact and nothing to laugh about.
Click to expand...

Facts are challenging things when they don't support your desired narrative, huh? Obama is on pace to have fewer EOs than all but 3 previous 12 POTUS and they were each 1-term or less Presidents.

Number of EO's per Wikipedia:
Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522
Harry S. Truman 907
Dwight D. Eisenhower 484
John F. Kennedy 214
Lyndon B. Johnson 325
Richard Nixon 346
Gerald R. Ford 169
Jimmy Carter 320
Ronald Reagan 381
George H. W. Bush 166
Bill Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama (as of 2015-12-31)[11] 224

Now it's time to pivot the argument to "it's not the volume EOs but the content of the EO". I'm ready for that BS argument too. Time to put this trope away and move on to real arguments.
 
That is the real argument. I have no idea what the content was of enough of those to know, but it IS just as important as quantity.

Interesting article. I was not a Trump supporter, still am not but I would vote for him. He speaks pretty plainly and matter of factly about what he wants to do.
Click to expand...

Only when he wants to. He can obfuscate as well as anyone. And a lot of what people call "speaking his mind" hardly equates to actually laying down what his plans and values are. Having no filter or decorum does not equal "an amazing person who finally just tells it like it is instead of sugarcoating".
 
Husker
Really? You think it is the number of EOs that is the important measure?
If that is what you truly think that is sad. However even when we disagree your points gave some level of substance so I doubt that is what you actually think. EOS are not points scored in a game
 
Horn6721 said:
Husker
Really? You think it is the number of EOs that is the important measure?
If that is what you truly think that is sad. However even when we disagree your points gave some level of substance so I doubt that is what you actually think. EOS are not points scored in a game
Click to expand...

I'm saying that Obama's use of the EO is no more or less ridiculous than his predecessors. It's a Brietbart-ish talking point that completely neglects the facts.

Here is a good article on EOs: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixg...ate-of-the-union-obama-executive-orders-hudak

What are some other significant EOs throughout history?
- Equal Employment Opportunity: LBJ Executive Order 11246
- Affirmative Action: Kennedy Executive Order 10925
- Desegregation of Schools: Dwight D. Eisenhower'S EO 10730
- The Emancipation Proclamation: Lincoln
- Desegregation of Armed Forces: Truman EO 9981
- Japanese - American internment: FDR EO 9066

The DREAMers act was significant. Was it more significant than any number of EOs before it? Are EOs more significant than signing statements (Bush Jr. set the record for these), rulemaking (regulatory) authority or other powers of the President? All of those are ways the POTUS uses their power. In the end, Congress can easily overwrite that power through legislation. Yes, Congress has the power to revers the DREAMer act.

What I take issue with is the fictitious narrative that Obama is any more abusive of his powers than any other POTUS.
 
Seattle Husker said:
One more, Cinco de Mayo is a Mexican holiday, not "Hispanic".


HRC's response:
Click to expand...


of course what #Shillary misses is that those two notions are not at all incompatible. If someone is in the country illegally, they DESERVE to get the boot. Wanting consequence to attach to an action does not mean one cannot like a particular demographic...
 
mb227 said:
of course what #Shillary misses is that those two notions are not at all incompatible. If someone is in the country illegally, they DESERVE to get the boot. Wanting consequence to attach to an action does not mean one cannot like a particular demographic...
Click to expand...
Yeah, especially we already know that besides the rapist and murderers he's warned us about, Trump is willing to assume some of them are good people.
 
Last edited:
Ann Coulter once said, regarding the long-term prospects for Air America, "This is not an ideology that can withstand 3 hours on the air, where any trucker with a cell phone can call in and shoot down their cockamamy ideas." Air America lasted, what, 5-6 years, before it folded? I've liked her ever since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top