Sanders v. Cruz would have been the more interesting one. Polar opposites of the political spectrum. I imagine the debates would have been fascinating.
Donald Trump for President Thread
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
Wonder how Trump would have attacked him??
I think sometimes you have to embrace the chaos, I'm a Labour voter who voted to remain in EU. Now we have the courts saying our Parliament has to decide on article 50, I'm enjoying the chaos and seeing a general election next year.
The media has it in for Corbyn but I'm intrigued to see what happens in an election next year.
It would have been interesting since there are some populist overtones with both candidates. I imagine Trump would have basically attacked Sanders as a socialist with no business experience (casting him as an aloof professorial type)
If Sanders had beaten Hillary, we'd have a real live Socialist party rather than the crony capitalist farrago that Hillary runs under, to start with. Understand, I was a registered Democrat for over thirty years.
Thomas Friedman and the Washington Post would be in a dither. If Trump was also a candidate, he wouldn't be my choice either.
Between the two of these, America's soul has no representative. That's part of the current problem. Trump is not an answer, he's merely a firewall. It is what it is.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
this is why Americans can't have nice things.
That's adorable.
Yup. I live in Mass, a state with a republican governor and two other's in my time here, but yes, it's a blue state. I also spend a lot of time in NH. I'm not registered with either party and although I consider myself socially liberal, I probably would consider myself fiscally conservative. I hope I'm reasonable. For example, Trump hasn't paid any taxes in ages, that's a problem with the taxation system. And Clinton is no doubt guilty of something when it comes to emails. I do think she's a poor candidate but I think the media circus for or against Trump is what's dividing America. I think the far right media have wormed their way into the psyche of blue collar America and have convinced many good people that this carpetbagger should be president!
So if we closed up Fox, the NY Observer, right-wing talk radio, and Breitbart for example, things would be more balanced and we would have more reasonable candidates. They must have been for Trump from the start. How would the government go about fixing that?
It's easy to figure out why Trump would skip out on taxes, but it's harder for me to understand why Hillary would go to all that trouble to run her stuff out of an illegal bathroom server. Dealing with security is inconvenient as heck, and the most charitable conclusion is that she didn't want to be inconvenienced (after all, she did made Huma print out her emails so she could read them and make comments on paper because that's the way she preferred to work) even though she made classified data available for anybody who could hack into the poorly protected commercial server she was using against all government policy. As long as it is OK with the president, and it clearly was, I suppose it should be OK with me.
If this is not the story, you might think she might have been trying to hide something from us. Too bad the right-wing media undermined my faith in our institutions.
I guess my twenty plus years in the IT business under the sort of security we labored under (and yes, it was a giant pain in the posterior and wasted countless hours of our time waiting for data to be scrubbed before we could test with it) to protect client data has distorted my outlook.
Just a question and I hope it doesn't come across as accusatory. Do you know about Hilary's past or just what has been talked about recently by the media? One thing that has annoyed me a bit with Hilary supporters (disclaimer I do not support Trump either) is that they either are ignorant of or choose to ignore that her dirty dealings go all the way back to 1978-79 when she used insider information to trade cattle futures and went from 1,000 to 100,000 (1978 money) within a year. For those that don't know (don't want to assume anything about you) trading futures, especially ag futures, is very very tricky and professional traders go broke everyday. What she did as some people have put it is less likely than winning the lottery twice. Since then she has continued on this path of illegality and wants to let industry insiders regulate major markets as revealed by the Podesta emails. I honestly think whether Trump or Clinton we are in for a very very rocky (not enough hyperbole for this) financial road in the near future.
Sean Y
Player Valuation: £150k
my bad, apologies. I'd delete but I don't think I can.
A) There is more than enough hyperbole for that. Sectors of our economy may crash. People will live uncomfortably. And the the recovery will begin. It will not be economically apocalyptic unless we go and do something stupid with nuclear weapons. Or attack China or something.
B) Honestly, this is probs going to be a 1 term presidency. But the Supreme Court for the next generation could hang in the balance. Do you want the control of that to go to a populist that has a huge chunk of his support coming from hyper-conservatives?
The economy is all well and good, and general I'm high and mighty and act like it matter more than social reform. But considering the bind we're in as a nation, we need to be honest here - the Supreme Court matters. A lot. For the economy and for our society. And it's in the balance.
Not to pile on, and really didn't want to read as snarky as the above reply reads, but're you're truly onto something.
Our media is very sophisticated about the way they shape their content, whether it is Rush Limbaugh or NPR or the NYT. I have long held that in the general election if we are talking about Hillary at election time, she'll lose. The same goes for Trump. Hillary is sinking because we're talking about her and the FBI this week instead of some creepy thing Trump has said. They'd really rather focus on Trump, but they feel the reins of the muleteam slipping away because of the internal revolt in the FBI.
They just can't say no to leaks, so they print them and try to spin them. They are their lifeblood. This is an extraordinary time.
Agreed to all the above, RB. Both sides of this see it the same way. Most of us more-than-reluctant Trump voters are doing it because of the courts. That's a different discussion though. Thinking of what Hillary would put into Nino Scalia's chair will make us eat the bug.
I honestly don't have the same faith in the picks Clinton would put forward as you do apparently maybe on social policy but I could see another coporate personhood type decision coming from her ranks or some other type of decision like upholding the offices apparent right to drone whoever we want to wherever we want to. I also don't see Trump as that involved in anything other having the title and making public appearances (as Kasich said he offered to make him head of domestic and foreign policy) so I doubt the picks would come from Trump.
To your point about us not being on a economic road to ruin, the people that she wants to put in charge of the regulatory arms for industries (such as the SEC) show that she is fine with turning industries over to the power players in each field. That being said I would never vote for either of them.
I'm not saying Clinton's choices would be good.
I'm simply saying that Pence's/Kasich's (let's not pretend Kasich isn't socially conservative as hell just because the party has become full reactionary) would be catastrophic. I mean...if it was just corporate regulation I was worried about, then yeah, it's all bad. But on one side I have someone that will treat the rich preferentially while trying to improve equality among women and races. On the other side I have someone that will treat the rich preferentially while reinforcing white male christian dominance.
So I take the blue pill, while gagging, because the red one is just more abhorrent to me.
Corporate personhood is vile and disgusting. I don't see either of them being the type to oppose it.
- Status