View Full Version : Trump! Trump! Trump!
Thankfully none of my facebook friends have admitted to being trump supporters. I have, on a few occasions run into them in the comments on friends' posts, though. It's mildly entertaining to converse with them. Much moreso than it is engaging with the Hillary supporters among my friends and friends of friends. It got very tedious watching them try to explain away her awful dishonesty/mistake from Nancy Reagan's funeral. I mean, honestly, either her and Bernie will be fine as president from a gay rights perspective, but you'd never know it from these people. Of all the things that differentiate Hillary and Bernie their support or lack thereof of gay Americans isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure neither will be making me wear a pink triangle and go off to "camp" the way I half expect that Trump would.
freshstart
3-16-16, 6:12pm
I wouldn't be shocked at that.
I've lost my debating ability when speaking, the thoughts just get all jumbled up but my DD has carried on the debating torch. I am proud to listen to her factually destroy my dad point by point on Trump (my dad is winding her up, he's not really a supporter).
I am loving Donald’s Trump success. Loving it. In fact I am downright giddy. Here’s why:
The liberal caricatures of the Republican base are being proven right, which of course we knew all along
Prior to this election, “working class” whites voted how they were told by party leaders. They are finally wising up to the rather obvious fact that what is good for the donors is not necessarily good for them.
Unfortunately, they have stumbled onto this for the wrong reasons. But that is okay because ultimately they badly needed a divorce from Republican leaders who promote donor policies. They have been getting economically used and abused by the Republican Party for too long.
Trump’s pseudo-authoritarianism doesn’t scare me at all. We have constitutional safeguards that will hold up fine in the unlikely event he became President
Meanwhile, if he gets the Republican nomination, the most likely outcome is that Hillary wins in a landslide. A blowout. Perhaps that is the most important part of this.
That means further Republican chaos after the election
On the downside, he has run a very ugly race-based campaign. So all of the positives above need to be balanced against that. But on balance, I am rooting for Donald Trump to win the nomination. Besides, the alternative is Ted Cruz. Boom.
I am loving Donald’s Trump success. Loving it. In fact I am downright giddy. Here’s why:
The liberal caricatures of the Republican base are being proven right, which of course we knew all along
Prior to this election, “working class” whites voted how they were told by party leaders. They are finally wising up to the rather obvious fact that what is good for the donors is not necessarily good for them.
Unfortunately, they have stumbled onto this for the wrong reasons. But that is okay because ultimately they badly needed a divorce from Republican leaders who promote donor policies. They have been getting economically used and abused by the Republican Party for too long.
Trump’s pseudo-authoritarianism doesn’t scare me at all. We have constitutional safeguards that will hold up fine in the unlikely event he became President
Meanwhile, if he gets the Republican nomination, the most likely outcome is that Hillary wins in a landslide. A blowout. Perhaps that is the most important part of this.
That means further Republican chaos after the election
On the downside, he has run a very ugly race-based campaign. So all of the positives above need to be balanced against that. But on balance, I am rooting for Donald Trump to win the nomination. Besides, the alternative is Ted Cruz. Boom.
And Trump is promising riots at the convention if he's denied. This is shaping up to be a fun time for the whole family!
Williamsmith
3-16-16, 11:40pm
http://youtu.be/mYajHZ4QUVM
Ultralight
3-16-16, 11:45pm
How much can one really know about oneself if they have never been in a riot?
Ultralight
3-16-16, 11:48pm
http://youtu.be/mYajHZ4QUVM
Liberal!
ApatheticNoMore
3-17-16, 12:21am
The liberal caricatures of the Republican base are being proven right, which of course we knew all along
hard to say as we don't REALLY know why people are voting for Trump. I don't need to know why to know Trump seems a very bad idea for President for many reasons, that's independent of that. But we don't know why. I suspect, many suspect that racism plays a part, it almost can't not, it's kind of duh, but it's not a thing you can directly confirm that easily and how many people are even doing real research in why people are voting for Trump (as opposed to idle speculation of which there is NO END - they are really voting for trump because they are poor white working class hurt economically, or they like his protectionist trade "policy" (though I think it's a mistake to attribute policy of any sort to Trump), or they want anyone who isn't the establishment just to burn the system down, or they envy him and would rather be him than other candidates, or they like his business experience (questionable as it is) etc.). At least the authoritarian personality hypothesis attempts at social science and real academic study (and if it were true it's not just racism but people's fears getting activated, people prone to certain types of fears).
The authoritarianism - no more than that the thuggishness - of some of his followers alone scares me. Heaven knows what they are capable of. As for Constitutional protections blah blah we're post-Constitutional now. The NDAA passed. We have a President with a kill list. I don't know how much of a threat Trump really is (noone knows how Trump would actually govern which makes voting for him not a trump card but a complete wild card), but those powers in the wrong hands, of course it's bad. The Constitution didn't prevent W from torturing and it won't prevent alleged torture lover Trump from doing the same (again how he would actually govern I have no idea, but the guy outright said he's all for waterboarding and worse). I'd like to think Hillary would win in a landslide against Trump, even though both are quite bad, but for every Republican willing to vote for Hillary, there's a disaffected liberal who won't forgive or forget Bernie Sander's loss if he loses and at best won't vote.
The liberal caricatures of the Republican base are being proven right, which of course we knew all along
.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." ~ Mark Twain
Obama's selection of Garland for the Supreme Court is an interesting choice in light of the election. A moderate liberal with conservative tendencies. It shows a nice contrast of Obama's willingness to work with congress compared to the uncompromising positions of the conservatives who say they will reject anyone. Or maybe it is just political ploy to make the GOP look more silly and radical, and gain some traction in the elections? Hillary could nominate a liberal as far to the left as Scalia was to the right. Will congress take the bait or wait?
If the polls are right, Hillary is starting to look like a shoe in. The next big issue will be whether the Democrats will make any gains in the house or senate and how the Trumpisms and sometimes adolescent representation of the presidential GOP candidates in the debates will affect other elections. Interesting times when all three branches of government are up for possibly significant changes.
Ultralight
3-17-16, 8:35am
It shows a nice contrast of Obama's willingness to work with congress compared to the uncompromising positions of the conservatives who say they will reject anyone.
I call it selling out. Which is why I regret both of my votes to O.
Williamsmith
3-17-16, 9:04am
Obama's selection of Garland for the Supreme Court is an interesting choice in light of the election. A moderate liberal with conservative tendencies. It shows a nice contrast of Obama's willingness to work with congress compared to the uncompromising positions of the conservatives who say they will reject anyone. Or maybe it is just political ploy to make the GOP look more silly and radical, and gain some traction in the elections? Hillary could nominate a liberal as far to the left as Scalia was to the right. Will congress take the bait or wait?
If the polls are right, Hillary is starting to look like a shoe in. The next big issue will be whether the Democrats will make any gains in the house or senate and how the Trumpisms and sometimes adolescent representation of the presidential GOP candidates in the debates will affect other elections. Interesting times when all three branches of government are up for possibly significant changes.
The polls are meaningless at this point in the election campaign. Is Hillary charismatic? Is she even interesting? Would she even survive four years? Trump has already shown he can draw democrats into the voting booth for him. Once Bernie is gone........it might be shocking to know how many Bernie supporters today would be willing to knock down a lever for Trump. Much of the Bern is not a leaning towards socialism....it is a leaning away from Clinton special interests. It might be closer than you think and very uncomfortable for the nation.
Ultralight
3-17-16, 9:05am
I'd vote for Trump before Billary.
It seems like expounding theories of Trump has become a cottage industry. If you view politics almost exclusively in racial terms, you focus on accusations of racism. The tin foil crowd sees him as a tool of the oligarch overclass. The folks for whom we are always a step away from the Weimar Republic hear jackboots on the cobblestones. He's a thug to those who said "I deplore the violence in Baltimore, but I understand..." To the "What's the Matter with Kansas" set, he is a big dollop of false consciousness for the folks whose "best interests" are represented by the left. He's a reaction to the Obama years. He's a reaction to a pusillanimous Republican establishment that couldn't or wouldn't stop Obama's many usurpations. He's an expression of disgust with a condescending PC culture. He is an expression of the politics of victimhood by a demographic that is usually assigned the villain role. He is a sort of apotheosis of a degraded celebrity culture.
I see him as your basic demagogue, talking tough and pushing big government to solve problems and pandering to various interest groups.
The polls are meaningless at this point in the election campaign.....shocking to know how many Bernie supporters today would be willing to knock down a lever for Trump. Much of the Bern is not a leaning towards socialism....it is a leaning away from Clinton special interests. It might be closer than you think and very uncomfortable for the nation.
As it goes, it's not over until the lady sings, and the polls have proven to be wrong historically. But what I see is only a few Bernie supporters crossing party lines to vote Trump, but significant mainstream Republicans voting for a third party or for Hillary solely to avoid Trump. I don't know what the polls say, but I don't think most people actually like either candidate, so I could be way off and it will be interesting. I have a friend who says, "Just hold your nose and vote Hillary".
Obama's selection of Garland for the Supreme Court is an interesting choice in light of the election. A moderate liberal with conservative tendencies. It shows a nice contrast of Obama's willingness to work with congress compared to the uncompromising positions of the conservatives who say they will reject anyone. Or maybe it is just political ploy to make the GOP look more silly and radical, and gain some traction in the elections?
If Obama was stupid I'd assume that he was still trying, after 7 failed years, to work with congress. I would much more suspect this is a political ploy to make the GOP look stupid before the election.
Ultralight
3-17-16, 11:29am
If Obama was stupid I'd assume that he was still trying, after 7 failed years, to work with congress. I would much more suspect this is a political ploy to make the GOP look stupid before the election.
The problem is that the public conflates GOP stupidity with GOP strength.
rodeosweetheart
3-18-16, 6:56pm
MoveOn put together a chilling video of Trump inciting violence:
https://www.facebook.com/moveon/videos/10153319831090493/
Williamsmith
3-19-16, 9:19pm
Trump doesn't have to incite the violence......it will just come along quite naturally. I think many people are quite misinformed about the assumption that Americans are innately civilized. Only our affluence has calmed our riotous nature. We are soft. Very soft.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-16, 7:40am
I maybe think innately has little to do with anything compared to media manipulation at a certain point. 24/7/365 Trump's outrageous garbage and I'm supposed to believe stuff is due to some kind of innate something something (because that's such a controlled experiment to isolate external factors). I don't think everyone is manipulated, but like advertising itself (which I'm told is WHY we have to be confronted with Trump 24/7/365 - so that we can be confronted with ads and that they will have lots of viewers), it has to have an effect. What if all (to make it simple let's just say major party) candidates had to be given equal media time? I'm not saying we'd get a better result (we might get Cruz) but we'd almost certainly get a different result.
rodeosweetheart
3-20-16, 9:15am
That's an interesting theory, APN, and could well be true. . .
I call it selling out. Which is why I regret both of my votes to O.
That seems to be one of the underlying issues, is being able to work with others a sign of weakness or a sign of strength? I find it a sign of strength that takes a lot of work. When I go into a situation that requires this I work much harder and the results are sometimes way beyond what I expected.
UA I just have to wonder, most of your work advice is also to check out, detach, etc. Most of us have not been taught skills to stay in a situation, have boundaries yet still work something out. Just rolling this around.
I agree, Zoe. I'm impressed with Obama's time in office. He was more hawkish than I prefer - but then I was raised pacifist Mennonite so most people are more hawkish than I prefer. Otherwise I think he did the best he could with what he had to work with.
Washington is a place of making deals to get the best result you can - and that's good. Otherwise we'd have a series of crazy dictators.
freshstart
3-20-16, 3:18pm
I'm impressed with Obama's time in office. He was more hawkish than I prefer - Otherwise I think he did the best he could with what he had to work with.
Washington is a place of making deals to get the best result you can - and that's good. Otherwise we'd have a series of crazy dictators.
I agree, for the Congress he had to work with, I am impressed with the amt he got done. I have nothing but respect for him and for Michelle, how often can you say that in the last 30 yrs of Presidents? I look forward to their next act, I think they have the momentum going to do really good things
Williamsmith
3-22-16, 8:37am
Trump is going to receive a bump from world events. To the extent that counter terrorism officials have been punched in the gut this morning and preparedness in the United States is in a poor state of affairs; the strong man option will grow in popularity. And Trump knows how to work this in his favor. Urban areas are most at risk. Trump needs the urban vote to overcome the Clinton advantage.
Ultralight
3-22-16, 8:48am
Trump is going to receive a bump... the strong man option will grow in popularity. And Trump knows how to work this in his favor.
You might be right. Sad-LMAO!
I doubt it will have much impact one way or the other. When one front-runner is despised by 57% of the electorate and the other by 52%, I don't see an act of terror in Europe as uppermost in voters' minds here. If anything, Hillary has the more hawkish past to sell, although she backs away from it under pressure.
Ultralight
3-22-16, 9:25am
...one front-runner is despised by 57% of the electorate and the other by 52%
What about those that despise both?
Ultralight
3-22-16, 9:45am
It seems like people are less interested in the election now.
Guerrilla warfare (AKA terrorism) is notoriously hard to combat--that's the idea. If it were easy to squelch, it wouldn't be so popular among the marginalized of the world. But don't try to convince the authoritarians (and their groveling followers) of that. Likely they know full well it's a losing proposition and are just looking for a hook to hang their campaign on.
Ultralight
3-23-16, 7:21am
Arizona! Woo-Hoo!
Guerrilla warfare (AKA terrorism) is notoriously hard to combat-
1) Classic guerrilla warfare is quite different from terrorism.
2) What we are facing today is open-source, asymmetric, Fourth Generation warfare, which is a pretty nasty thing to deal with. 4GW incorporates both terrorism and guerrilla operations in its toolkit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare
rodeosweetheart
3-23-16, 2:04pm
Thanks Bae, I will look into this to learn, and I think you are quite right, it is something very different.
1) Classic guerrilla warfare is quite different from terrorism.
2) What we are facing today is open-source, asymmetric, Fourth Generation warfare, which is a pretty nasty thing to deal with. 4GW incorporates both terrorism and guerrilla operations in its toolkit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare
Good summary. Thanks. I remember years of "the troubles" going on in Ireland. These things have happened historically; I guess they're more important now because our ox has been gored.
Good summary. Thanks. I remember years of "the troubles" going on in Ireland. These things have happened historically; I guess they're more important now because our ox has been gored.
I think it is much easier these days for "open-source" warfare to be successful:
- Modern communications infrastructure allows easy anonymous distribution of "how-to" information, target information, propaganda materials to encourage and recruit actors
- The same infrastructure, along with advances in mathematics, makes it trivial for parties to communicate quite securely, if they wish to coordinate their activities. The beauty of open-source conflicts is that such coordination, and the classic cell-structures to protect more organized entities, simply aren't necessary anymore, making it quite hard to infiltrate/root out The Baddies.
- Our society is tremendously vulnerable to high-payoff/low-cost attacks on key leverage points. A couple of guys acting alone can disrupt a major metro area around our Nation's capitol for weeks, for example ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks )
I've thought about the dirty bomb scenario,but the chance of being killed or injured by a terrorist is minuscule. The chance of a terrorist doing what terrorists do--terrorizing people and causing chaos--is slightly greater. Last night, I-5 was shut down between Vancouver and Portland for about an hour because some chucklehead was on the bridge making threats of various kinds. Fortunately, he was only armed with a knife or two.
As technology used by Baddies increases, so will surveillance--until we each have the equivalent of our own Big Brother sitting on our shoulder. I imagine that by then, we'll be off to the next real or perceived--and more sophisticated--threat.
Williamsmith
5-4-16, 8:56am
Well, I have enjoyed reviewing this thread in light of last nights turn of events. Now that Ted has taken off the battle gear and gone home to sulk about God's benevolent hand being removed from protecting our apostate country, we can get on with reclaiming our sovereign nation.
And it is Clinton who has been put on notice. To be sure, she has many blemishes. She has a few influential oligarchs determined to make her President. The other, millions of common ordinary challenged People who are fed up with conservatives promising a capitalist trickle down utopia. Trump is farther left than Clinton......much farther left in many respects. This has always been a movement of workers. True Republican Establishment "Conservatives" should be running screaming for salvation to Clinton because she is the only thing standing in the way of the working class taking back this country. A working class that is not of the mind to forgive. Trump is just a tool. When his usefulness is no longer needed, to be discarded. Who should we be worried about? One man? Or a movement?
Who can unite this country? Who can provide a better view of Justice? Who can heal the wounds of racism and income inequality? Who can field a strong protective military? Who can secure our border from maurading foreigners who take our money back to their country, pay no taxes, import drugs, steal our futures? Who can stop the corporate globalization that threatens to turn the country into a tumbling tumbleweed. Who can maintain a reasonable immigration policy that allows legal immigrants the dignity of a proper vetting process and deny line cutters and terrorist infiltrators access to our taxpayer funded welfare system? Who can Make it Better for our children? This time around....Can you make the right choice?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Who can unite this country? Who can provide a better view of Justice? Who can heal the wounds of racism and income inequality? Who can field a strong protective military? Who can secure our border from maurading foreigners who take our money back to their country, pay no taxes, import drugs, steal our futures? Who can stop the corporate globalization that threatens to turn the country into a tumbling tumbleweed. Who can maintain a reasonable immigration policy that allows legal immigrants the dignity of a proper vetting process and deny line cutters and terrorist infiltrators access to our taxpayer funded welfare system? Who can Make it Better for our children?
In my mind, the only way to accomplish any of this is through a solid conservative majority in both houses of Congress. As the Presidency has become a haven for populists whose influence will ebb and flow, the only means of stability is through the legislative branch.
In my mind, the only way to accomplish any of this is through a solid conservative majority in both houses of Congress. As the Presidency has become a haven for populists whose influence will ebb and flow, the only means of stability is through the legislative branch.
Absolutely. As the demagogues and hacks demand a bold march into isolationism, trade protection and redistribution, we will see the genius of the founders' design (at least I hope we will).
Could it be that the GOP policies of the past 35 years just have not served working-to-middle class Americans very well economically?
Maybe this is not so much about constitutional interpretations or the spirit of the founding dads. Maybe it is just this:
"You said that we'd be better off with your economic policies. But we ain't! So we are going to vote for someone with policy ideas that are different and closer to the ones we talk about around the kitchen table at home."
Could it be that the GOP policies of the past 35 years just have not served working-to-middle class Americans very well economically?
Maybe this is not so much about constitutional interpretations or the spirit of the founding dads. Maybe it is just this:
"You said that we'd be better off with your economic policies. But we ain't! So we are going to vote for someone with policy ideas that are different and closer to the ones we talk about around the kitchen table at home."
Well, the chances are improving that you will get that. Good and hard.
What is the worst/realistic thing that would happen with a Trump presidency?
What is the worst/realistic thing that would happen with a Trump presidency?
That really depends on how Congress morphs after this election. The two parties like to loudly oppose to prevent what they don't want from passing, and quietly agree when they do. Trump would likely be a wild card that would not play that game. So whoever is driving Congress may have opportunity to push things through that would never otherwise happen, and the question is whether they would do it.
That really depends on how Congress morphs after this election. The two parties like to loudly oppose to prevent what they don't want from passing, and quietly agree when they do. Trump would likely be a wild card that would not play that game. So whoever is driving Congress may have opportunity to push things through that would never otherwise happen, and the question is whether they would do it.
Seems tame.
What is the worst/realistic thing that would happen with a Trump presidency?
Chances are he wouldn't have the votes for a draconian immigration bill. That would force him into an Obama-style rule by decree. He might try aggressively enforcing existing laws that Obama elected to ignore.
He would almost certainly begin tearing up some of the trade treaties he blames for our economic problems.
Entitlements are anybody's guess. He hasn't been all that clear on his plans, although he has said he'd bolster Social Security by stopping aid to "people want to kill us".
I'm still doubtful he'll make it all the way to the White House. Surely even anger-addled voters won't be stupid in large enough numbers for that. I'm more worried about a Bernie-fied Clinton administration thinking they have a mandate for social engineering on a vast scale.
Ultralight
5-4-16, 10:16am
Chances are he wouldn't have the votes for a draconian immigration bill. That would force him into an Obama-style rule by decree. He might try aggressively enforcing existing laws that Obama elected to ignore.
He would almost certainly begin tearing up some of the trade treaties he blames for our economic problems.
Entitlements are anybody's guess. He hasn't been all that clear on his plans, although he has said he'd bolster Social Security by stopping aid to "people want to kill us".
I'm still doubtful he'll make it all the way to the White House. Surely even anger-addled voters won't be stupid in large enough numbers for that. I'm more worried about a Bernie-fied Clinton administration thinking they have a mandate for social engineering on a vast scale.
Again, that all seems pretty tame.
What is the worst/realistic thing that would happen with a Billary presidency?
President Obama, saddled with a recalcitrant Congress, has shown admirable restraint in his use of executive orders. You have to go back to Grover Cleveland (circa 1884) to find a president who used them less.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/
Again, that all seems pretty tame.
What is the worst/realistic thing that would happen with a Billary presidency?
I am assuming of course, that Congress will be a moderating influence. It's hard to say with certainty, as her words have never been a reliable indicator of what her actions might be. I suspect we'll be hearing the word "mandatory" more frequently.
She has made it pretty clear that she's not a big fan of the First Amendment as currently written.
Ultralight
5-4-16, 10:32am
I am assuming of course, that Congress will be a moderating influence. It's hard to say with certainty, as her words have never been a reliable indicator of what her actions might be. I suspect we'll be hearing the word "mandatory" more frequently.
She has made it pretty clear that she's not a big fan of the First Amendment as currently written.
I think you will dislike her rhetoric but be largely okay with her policies.
Trump just is the pied piper to lots of uneducated/aggressive/angry people who do a lot of knee-jerk reaction stuff. He might be leading the lemmings off the cliff.
Are lots of people unhappy with the present government/economic conditions/poverty? Yes, absolutely. And maybe they feel this is the only way to change anything.
But I think his popularity is because of the huge number of people in this country who don't think through things very much and don't have anyone who is in the middle, and reasonable.
And probably Hillary's popularity is in part, because of the huge number of people in this country who like getting away with staying poor, having family who are illegals, and who like getting away with being rich in less than fair ways.
Damn. The horse is out of the barn. What a mess it is. And who in their right mind would ever actually WANT to be president of this country?
Okay..back to the question about what's the worse thing that could happen if Trump wins. War. Violence. Every other country on this nation pissed at us. Unsurpassed greed. I could go on and on.
I truly believe this is just a game to Trump. Winning. That's all he's interested in. I don't think he would like being president at all, and I can see him quitting and leaving the country in a huge mess....while he lives out his rich life in some other country.
Have you seen on the news where he celebrates his victories? Who is with him? ........all his rich friends.....who, along with him, are pretty much disgusted by the type of person voting for him.
Someone wake me up from this bad dream.
President Obama, saddled with a recalcitrant Congress, has shown admirable restraint in his use of executive orders. You have to go back to Grover Cleveland (circa 1884) to find a president who used them less.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/
I think you need to go beyond simply counting them up and look at look at their significance.
I think you will dislike her rhetoric but be largely okay with her policies.
If that happens, it will be because Congress holds her in check they way they did Bill in the nineties.
Ultralight
5-4-16, 10:37am
Someone wake me up from this bad dream.
Into a worse reality?
Ultralight
5-4-16, 10:38am
If that happens, it will be because Congress holds her in check they way they did Bill in the nineties.
All her lefty talk will evaporate when The Bern is out of the picture.
All her lefty talk will evaporate when The Bern is out of the picture.
I pray to my primitive sky god that you are right.
Ultralight
5-4-16, 10:43am
I pray to my primitive sky god that you are right.
Me and my fellow lefties go through this with Dem after Dem. They talk a good game, but ultimately they are DINOs.
Me and my fellow lefties go through this with Dem after Dem. They talk a good game, but ultimately they are DINOs.
May it always be so.
Ultralight
5-4-16, 10:59am
May it always be so.
LOL
Trump just is the pied piper to lots of uneducated/aggressive/angry people who do a lot of knee-jerk reaction stuff. He might be leading the lemmings off the cliff.
Are lots of people unhappy with the present government/economic conditions/poverty? Yes, absolutely. And maybe they feel this is the only way to change anything.
But I think his popularity is because of the huge number of people in this country who don't think through things very much and don't have anyone who is in the middle, and reasonable.
And probably Hillary's popularity is in part, because of the huge number of people in this country who like getting away with staying poor, having family who are illegals, and who like getting away with being rich in less than fair ways.
Damn. The horse is out of the barn. What a mess it is. And who in their right mind would ever actually WANT to be president of this country?
Okay..back to the question about what's the worse thing that could happen if Trump wins. War. Violence. Every other country on this nation pissed at us. Unsurpassed greed. I could go on and on.
I truly believe this is just a game to Trump. Winning. That's all he's interested in. I don't think he would like being president at all, and I can see him quitting and leaving the country in a huge mess....while he lives out his rich life in some other country.
Have you seen on the news where he celebrates his victories? Who is with him? ........all his rich friends.....who, along with him, are pretty much disgusted by the type of person voting for him.
Someone wake me up from this bad dream.
My sentiments exactly!
Funny - when it's a Democrat president with a majority Republican congress, the congress is a "moderating influence." But when it's a Republican president with a majority Dem congress, then it's called "obstructionism."
Funny - when it's a Democrat president with a majority Republican congress, the congress is a "moderating influence." But when it's a Republican president with a majority Dem congress, then it's called "obstructionism."
I guess that depends on who's saying it, I've been hearing just the reverse for the past several years. No matter what you call it, the result is the same.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.