Well. I live in a state where I can safely vote for the Libertarian Candidate(which better suits me anyway) this time around without worrying about our states electoral votes going to The Felonious HRC* *copyright pending
That's certainly part of it, but everyone knows that it takes a certain breed to enter politics in the first place. That said, A good chunk of voters are going to see Trump as the guy riding in to save America, absent past political baggage, and beholden to no one but his own beliefs. That is tremendously attractive to a very large segment of voters. Hillary has been talked about as the president in waiting for the last 4 years and he's within a handful of points of her in the vast majority of polls. I bet he pulls even with her by August.
You may be right on his platform. I have paid less and less attention to the Republican primary. IIRC, he had been pretty steadfast in criticizing he Bush/Obama wars and stating that he would not antagonize Russia or send troops over seas to fight unnecessary wars. I didn't know about his comments on women and children. That's pretty shitty if true. That said, I'm more concerned with his actions than his rhetoric or the image it portrays to our enemies/potential enemies. The executive branch's authority has few meaningful limits, and federalism no longer exists in what is supposed to be a federal, not national, government framework. The constitution has to mean something or the rule of law ceases to exist, and the passions of an oppressive majority, the whims of a sociopath, the corrupt, self-serving, oppressive or political savvy mandates of an autocrat or pragmatic legislature will govern. Say what you want about Scalia and Thomas, but for the most part their textualist/original understanding approach provides a vital presence on the Court and, with a few exceptions where I can recall offhand believing that their reasoning deviated from their own principles and methodology, their approach is objective and non-political. I have no interest in another Roberts, Alito, or Rehnquist on the Court for the sake of "balance." I would take a politically liberal justice, such as former justice Hugo Black or Yale Professor Akhil Amar, who at least purport to be textualist/originalist (again, like with Scalia and Thomas, I don't always agree with their reasoning under their approaches), any day over those "conservative" justices.
Yeah. The seat deficit they would have to make up and the way so many districts are gerrymandered means we would have to be looking at a 1984 type landslide for that to maybe have a chance to happen.
You. I do not believe the American people would respond in the manner you suggested for the reasons I posted.
I never said I would vote for Trump. I said if I had to vote for one of either Hillary or Trump, I would vote Trump. If you want to be particular, I would categorize myself as an anarcho-capitalist over libertarian. It's a moot point because I don't vote. Also, RBG, Thomas, Kennedy, and Breyer are all moderate-to-highly likely to retire/die in the next 8 years. Coupled with Scalia's vacancy, I'm not sure how a 5-4 "liberal" majority is in place at the end of an HRC/Bernie presidency.
President in waiting is a bit absurd She was the presumptive Dem nominee but that doesn't guarantee anything. The GOP created this hard line stance of no compromises then kept continuously compromising. Of course they're fed up. The majority of voters are still moderates. And the outsider thing was appealing to those who were told no compromises but kept seeing compromises occur. The majority of voters didn't vote in primaries, but once they see him nationally it's going to be interesting The hugest dilemma for some is whether they can swallow their disdain for HRC. And tbh I don't believe they can. I think he's gonna win it all bc of this more than anything
Framing her as altruistic against Trump is exactly what you did, eho. It wasn't a straw man argument in the least.
Completely agree with this. If Trump keeps on with the barbs and flame-throwing I think that will become easier over time, but if he genuinely pivots and maintains the loyalty he's built while doing it, things will probably get dicey.
In my opinion, she cares more about the country than quite possibly the biggest egomaniac in the United States who has admitted to donating to whichever political party served his personal interest best. That doesn't mean she is inherently altruistic. I certainly didn't say or infer that she was inherently an altruist. Is she an altruist compared to Trump? Absolutely.
There is nothing wrong with being self-interested. It is outright evil to serve your interests through political power -- i.e., "lawful" violence or threat of violence on others. Hillary has made a career of doing the latter. Trump will probably do the same if elected, but his slate is relatively clean as of today.
I don't think he is capable of doing that. He would resort to name-calling, childish antics within the first 5 minutes of a debate with Hillary. Even if he did take the highroad, I don't see how Trump could win the general election with the smorgasbord of absurd quotes and sound and video clips of him from the last 20 years. No one outside of his base is going to vote for him, and I would think his bizarre antics would rally the voters on the other side.
Yea, but that's what everyone expects from him. I can't wait for the debates. He's going to do this and push Hillary over the edge, she's going to snap, and its going to be highly entertaining to watch. I have no doubt our country is screwed, but I'm enjoying the show while it lasts.
Anyone else see no problem rounding up all yes voters and putting them in labor camps? just a thought
I have trouble believing he believes the things he is saying re: foreign policy/economic protectionism. I wouldn't be surprised if he just pandering to his base.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of what exactly that is. Depending on who you ask, it's either nothing but Joe Dirt GED Neo-Nazis or a slightly more diverse collection of generally pissed off people.
The great thing about the US is that our constitution is strong enough to keep either from doing any real damage. Why?
he has said multiple times in the last few weeks/months that he was gonna start acting presidential then he said just yesterday that cruz's dad helped assassinate jfk the man is incapable of not reverting back to his arrogant/childish personality
Explain to me the executive power abuses you think the Constitution, as currently construed, would prevent.
Right. The guy who spent an hour last night explaining how there really isn't a white nationalist component to Trump's campaign is just an impartial observer.
How big is this really, though? Like .00000001% of his voters? And to clarify, by "white nationalist" are you referring to white people who want the US Govt to impose laws and policies to oppress non-whites?
I always thought the opposite about trump. That he would be the most likely candidate to abandon the crazy things he says on the campaign trail and say fuck you to the people who voted for him. For instance it's pretty obvious he's a pro-choice agnostic. I imagine if he gets elected he's gonna be like talk to me about that wall, and they're going to tell him it's a bad idea, and he's going to say very well.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/03/donald-trump-ted-cruz-father-jfk/ Donald Trump Accuses Ted Cruz’s Father of Associating With Kennedy Assassin Spoiler Photo Donald J. Trump spoke at the Palladium at the Center for the Performing Arts in Carmel, Ind., on Monday.Credit Eric Thayer for The New York Times Donald J. Trump, who has repeatedly dabbled in conspiracy theories during his time on the campaign trail, accused Senator Ted Cruz’s father of associating with Lee Harvey Oswald not long before Oswald assassinated President John F. Kennedy. Mr. Trump’s comments, in a Fox News interview, came in the wake of anarticle in The National Enquirer claiming to have definitive photographic evidence that Rafael Cruz was with Oswald distributing leaflets supporting the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in Louisiana in 1963. Mr. Trump’s comments also came on the day of the Indiana primary, where the Republican front-runner can effectively close out any chance for Mr. Cruz to deny him the presidential nomination. In the interview, Mr. Trump was asked to respond to the elder Mr. Cruz’s invocations of God as he urged evangelical voters to support his son, suggesting the alternative could mean the “destruction of America.” “I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to do it. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to say it,” Mr. Trump said, before adding, “And, you know, his father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right, prior to his being shot, and nobody brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported and nobody talks about it. But I think it’s horrible.” He went on, “What was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, before the shooting? It’s horrible.” Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz, said in an emailed statement, “The false, cheap, meaningless comments Trump makes almost daily indicates his desperation to get attention and willingness to say anything to do so. We are campaigning on jobs, freedom, and security while Trump campaigns on false tabloid garbage.” A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump did not respond to requests for comment. The Cruz campaign has called The Enquirer report error-filled and has questioned the supermarket tabloid’s approach to the 2016 race, which it has seen as pro-Trump. Invoking such a report about a political rival would have been seen as touching the equivalent of a third rail of a subway in any other election cycle. But Mr. Trump has frequently embraced or promoted hypotheticals or partially formed theories, saying that he was simply quoting what someone else said. A day before the Cruz remarks, Mr. Trump made a public display in Indiana of dining with the controversial author Ed Klein, whose books about President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been denounced by critics as containing scenes and dialogue manufactured from whole cloth. Mr. Klein, through a former spokesman, declined to be interviewed. the fact that seemingly intelligent adults in this country are voting for this man is beyond embarrasssing
"Very well, but your mother's ugly and nobody likes her. Your father doesn't even like her. And she's a tramp. Sad!"
You're a Trump voter, and have been for some time. Because you have a journalism degree, you feel some obligation to feign objectivity and pontificate in these poorly informed scrawls that take paragraphs to say nothing; but the connotation of your word choice, and the hills you choose to die on in argument make it pretty clear how you're voting in November. You voted no in the Hillary poll, and you haven't voted in this one. Why could that be?
I think its pretty clear you are several orders of magnitude off in your estimate of the percentage of his base that feels white people are becoming an oppressed minority and feel government action needs to be taken to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. Obviously that is not the sole source of his voting bloc, but it is a large enough portion that it can't be swept under the rug and ignored.
Just look at the brainpower on the Yes side of the vote. jfc Boom TittyMilk eobuck osuagr Realtree Buck POWESHOW HYPE Llama CUgator Jake Scott petey23 I'll Give You Asthma tmbrules letan mjkstl (Removed Joe_Pesci due to obvious trolling)
Senator Elizabeth Warren (Dem-Mass) posted these words on her Facebook page: Donald Trump is now the leader of the Republican Party. It's real – he is one step away from the White House. Here's what else is real: Trump has built his campaign on racism, sexism, and xenophobia. There's more enthusiasm for him among leaders of the KKK than leaders of the political party he now controls. He incites supporters to violence, praises Putin, and, according to a columnist who recently interviewed him, is "cool with being called an authoritarian" and doesn't mind associations with history's worst dictators. He attacks veterans like John McCain who were captured and puts our servicemembers at risk by cheerleading illegal torture. In a world with ISIS militants and leaders like North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un conducting nuclear tests, he surrounds himself with a foreign policy team that has been called a "collection of charlatans," and puts out contradictory and nonsensical national security ideas one expert recently called "incoherent" and "truly bizarre." What happens next will test the character for all of us – Republican, Democrat, and Independent. It will determine whether we move forward as one nation or splinter at the hands of one man's narcissism and divisiveness. I know which side I'm on, and I’m going to fight my heart out to make sure Donald Trump’s toxic stew of hatred and insecurity never reaches the White House.