Donald Trump

Billy86

BoatMad wrote: »

This time it was there for the taking, if as expected Trump fails, The GOP has only itself too blame, it has outstanding moderate candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, etc , yet it is caught up in the tea party radicalisation ,the Palin fiasco, etc that middle america wants no truck with.

The GOP is unelectable at present and will remain so. A duck could beat Clinton.

The GOP needs a serious re-think or it will go the route of the UK labour party and end up being a small protest party of right wingers Rand school of economics types

Yep, said it at the time. The unquestionably racially motivated Tea Party movement has done what most of us surely knew it would at the time (Palin was all you needed as a warning), and turned into a complete Frankenstein on them. Whether that eats their party completely or not, only time will tell, but the likes of Trump's successes hint that -- yes, they very well might.

Foxtrol

BoatMad wrote: »

This time it was there for the taking, if as expected Trump fails, The GOP has only itself too blame, it has outstanding moderate candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, etc , yet it is caught up in the tea party radicalisation ,the Palin fiasco, etc that middle america wants no truck with.

The GOP is unelectable at present and will remain so. A duck could beat Clinton.

The GOP needs a serious re-think or it will go the route of the UK labour party and end up being a small protest party of right wingers Rand school of economics types

Agree with all of the above.

In addition, the tide of demographics is steaming in the wrong direction for them. Their autopsy after the 2012 loss focused a lot on increasing appeal to non-white voters and in this election they’ve done the complete opposite. Trump’s comments/policies connection to the Party could easily turn a lot of Hispanic and Black communities even more toxic towards the Republican Brand and long term slow any chance of bringing a more diverse demographic under their tent. They’ll continue to do ok in the House, and to a lesser extent the Senate, due to gerrymandering but Presidential elections will only get tougher.

Capt'n Midnight

What's the worst that could happen ?

From The Dead Zone (1983)

Skip to 1:50 for the 10 second version

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football

El_Duderino 09

Billy86 wrote:

Yep, said it at the time. The unquestionably racially motivated Tea Party movement has done what most of us surely knew it would at the time (Palin was all you needed as a warning), and turned into a complete Frankenstein on them. Whether that eats their party completely or not, only time will tell, but the likes of Trump's successes hint that -- yes, they very well might.

I think you're looking at the tea party movement with the benefit of hindsight. The movement happened and the GOP tried it is best to reign it in. In doing so it shifted to the right, helped by 8 years of Karl Rove and fox news divisiveness.

I see Trump as a continuation of the Tea Party. The GOP is ding it's best to tame it but Trump has more in common with TP than the traditional Republicans.

Trump could be looked at as the first third party candidate (ever it in a long time) to have a real chance of winning the white house..

Billy86

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you're looking at the tea party movement with the benefit of hindsight. The movement happened and the GOP tried it is best to reign it in. In doing so it shifted to the right, helped by 8 years of Karl Rove and fox news divisiveness.

I see Trump as a continuation of the Tea Party. The GOP is ding it's best to tame it but Trump has more in common with TP than the traditional Republicans.

Trump could be looked at as the first third party candidate (ever it in a long time) to have a real chance of winning the white house..

Oh no, at the time that was exactly what I thought. Not unlike Trump, some tried to reign it in but others used it as an opportunity to prop themselves up with. It ultimately grew out of decades of 'othering' issues within their party (race, sex/gender/LGBT, religion, etc) that was typically more subtle and coded, but blew up once the voters had social media to tell us what they really think, as opposed to what the party leaders wanted the public messaging to come out as. I'm not at all saying all or even most Republican politicians are racist, but I am saying they played to that crowd for literally decades.

When the explosion happened, it happened for a reason - the first black president of the US. The meltdown in 2008 over this, especially as many started out so smug thinking the US electorate would never go for a black person, was of epic proportions, and several politicians were more than happy to get on board for their own political gain. Problem is, they were too short sighted to see what they had begun, and if Trump loses the election they'll have either a fractured party that splits (really doubt that), or someone even more extremist come 2020.

Paul Ryan is one of their only hopes against this, and unless (maybe even if) Trump were to win the election, watch them push & promote the sh*t out of him over the next four years in order to do so. Funny thing is, I reckon he would have walked all over Clinton in this election cycle just as I reckon Biden or Sanders would have walked all over Trump.

Ulysses Gaze

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What's the worst that could happen ?

From The Dead Zone (1983)

Skip to 1:50 for the 10 second version

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football

I guess Stephen King can see the future....

Foxtrol

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you're looking at the tea party movement with the benefit of hindsight. The movement happened and the GOP tried it is best to reign it in. In doing so it shifted to the right, helped by 8 years of Karl Rove and fox news divisiveness.

I see Trump as a continuation of the Tea Party. The GOP is ding it's best to tame it but Trump has more in common with TP than the traditional Republicans.

Trump could be looked at as the first third party candidate (ever it in a long time) to have a real chance of winning the white house..

It’s not only Fox though; there is a big market for conservative talk radio (and now websites and podcasts) that consistently espouse much worse fear and hate than Fox. Fox source their most controversial presenters from there, also where they go back to when Fox cuts ties to them, and these wouldn’t even be the worst out there.

Main stream Republicans, from the leaders down, hold a lot of blame too. They did try to rein in the Tea Party but they also constantly blocked everything the Democrats tried to do (seeing it as a badge of honour) while using outlandish rhetoric from ‘socialist’ to ‘tyrant’ when speaking to their base when describing the Democrats. After 8 years of that rhetoric, how do they expect their base to turn to? The candidates who come out with quite similar proposals to the Democrats or the candidate who wants to change things and turns up the rhetoric even more.

Samaris

I don't think this will destroy the Republican party. It's withstood chaos in the ranks before. But this does clearly show that there are two parties within the GOP.

This is the uglier face of Republicanism, expressing in the most angry and the ones feeling like there's no future under the establishment. I suppose the left equivalent would be some sort of 1984ish scenario, where everything is tightly controlled "for our own good".

In a way, it's almost fascinating to see it laid bare so clearly. Trump is almost a caricature, a lefty horror story of what the right might get up to if a disapproving eye isn't kept on them. You don't expect to -see- it in real life!

Annasopra

I think now perhaps Trump wants to lose. Maybe the conspiracists who pointed out his previous friendship with Bill and Hillary all along were right.

I mean everyday ge is saying something outrageous now.

The latest is that Obama formed ISIS

LordSutch

I think he's a bit like a deranged Boris, if that's possible? Trump may also reaslise that he's bitten off more than he can chew in the same way Boris did, as he realised the enormity of his unwanted Brexit victory?

Trump can't win now, surely he himself can't believe that he can be President of the United States, whilst also being serious Statesman on the world stage

A Little Pony

Butters1979 wrote: »

BoatMad wrote: »

A statement worthy of ISIS

Actually no, ISIS are very authoritarian. It's the opposite of their beliefs.

The fact that post got 9 likes shows just how little some people on here know about American history and the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers would be campaigning day and night to make sure Hillary didn't get in to destroy the 2nd Amendment as it is. They believed in the right of the citizens to arm themselves in case a government becomes overbearing.

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."[/font]
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]" - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785[/font]

A Little Pony

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."[/font]
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Hillary is a disgrace.[/font]

Pro Hoc Vice

A Little Pony wrote: »

The fact that post got 9 likes shows just how little some people on here know about American history and the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers would be campaigning day and night to make sure Hillary didn't get in to destroy the 2nd Amendment as it is. They believed in the right of the citizens to arm themselves in case a government becomes overbearing.





[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]" - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785[/font]

Firstly the founding fathers did not agree as a group on everything. Fact is the 2nd amendment is exactly that an amendment in fact one of the first 10 otherwise the bill of rights. The reason amendments is the founding fathers at the drafting of the constitution, divided on the whole issue of setting personal rights in the constitution. To interpret the constitution and its amendments hundreds of years after it was written is a difficult task and to try and look into the minds of long dead people to unlock the hidden agreed view of men who agreed on very little.

InTheTrees

A Little Pony wrote: »

The fact that post got 9 likes shows just how little some people on here know about American history and the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers would be campaigning day and night to make sure Hillary didn't get in to destroy the 2nd Amendment as it is. They believed in the right of the citizens to arm themselves in case a government becomes overbearing.

If you knew anything about the US Constitution you'd know that Clinton cant "destroy" the second amendment.

Pro Hoc Vice

InTheTrees wrote: »

If you knew anything about the US Constitution you'd know that Clinton cant "destroy" the second amendment.

That is just a inconvenient truth.

K-9

Democrats want to tear down the constitution and take away guns. Some people genuinely believe this hence Trump, Cruz, Palin et al.

It's the politics of fear and Republicans in particular thrive on it.

Exeggcute

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think now perhaps Trump wants to lose. Maybe the conspiracists who pointed out his previous friendship with Bill and Hillary all along were right.

I mean everyday ge is saying something outrageous now.

The latest is that Obama formed ISIS

A recently declassified U.S. document shows that the Pentagon deliberately funded and armed radical jihadis in Syria in an effort to overthrow Assad. The document shows the Pentagon admitting that there was a risk that their strategy would lead to the rise of an Islamic Caliphate but it was one they were willing to take.

Much like how their arming of Osama Bin Laden led to to the creation of Al Qaeda

So Trump is essentially correct here. Not that the media will care to dig deeper and acknowledge any of this.

K-9

Yes, but Trump wants a war on Islamic extremists so...

Means Of Escape

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but Trump wants a war on Islamic extremists so...

So effectively he's going to try to put the animal the Obama administration unleashed back in its box through the only way possible brute force - bombing them out of it with drone strikes .

So the US government assisting the rebels foolishly believe that the said rebels will put down their weapons and pick up a cup of tea and go back to being Ordinary Joe

Where the reality is that Syria will also go to pure sh1t like Iraq and Libya

wes

Means Of Escape wrote: »

So effectively he's going to try to put the animal the Obama administration unleashed back in its box through the only way possible brute force - bombing them out of it with drone strikes .

ISIS are just a renamed Al Qaeda in Iraq, who are being run by former Saddam secret police, and wouldn't exist without the Iraq war. They existed long before Obama was president, just under a different name. Trump is again showing that he hasn't a notion what he is talking about.

Exeggcute

wes wrote: »

ISIS are just a renamed Al Qaeda in Iraq, who are being run by former Saddam secret police, and wouldn't exist without the Iraq war. They existed long before Obama was president, just under a different name. Trump is again showing that he hasn't a notion what he is talking about.

Yeah the Pentagon - sure what would they know.

Quite unbelievable the lengths Obama supporters will go to defend his Middle East adventures, even so far as ignoring the Pentagon outlining the exact strategy that led to ISIS and admitting they knew the risk but deciding it was worth it.

ISIS would not exist without the initial U.S. arms support, Saudi Funding and Turkish access routes.

El_Duderino 09

A Little Pony wrote:

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

It's worth pointing out that the letter you ised doesn't put any limits on the type f weapon or the people. So it includes criminals, people with a violent record, the mentally ill and those who have used weapons to harm in the past, having arms such as grenades and assault rifles. Do you agree with the groups mentioned above having all the arms imaginable? Serious question.

If you don't agree then how do you decide who should have access to what weapons? If you place any restrictions on people or arms, you in the same broad category of disgrace as Hillary?

K-9

Means Of Escape wrote: »

So effectively he's going to try to put the animal the Obama administration unleashed back in its box through the only way possible brute force - bombing them out of it with drone strikes .

So the US government assisting the rebels foolishly believe that the said rebels will put down their weapons and pick up a cup of tea and go back to being Ordinary Joe

Where the reality is that Syria will also go to pure sh1t like Iraq and Libya

Bombing them has made things worse so the solution is... bomb them even more.

K-9

Exeggcute wrote: »

Yeah the Pentagon - sure what would they know.

Quite unbelievable the lengths Obama supporters will go to defend his Middle East adventures, even so far as ignoring the Pentagon outlining the exact strategy that led to ISIS and admitting they knew the risk but deciding it was worth it.

ISIS would not exist without the initial U.S. arms support, Saudi Funding and Turkish access routes.

The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republic in the White House.

"Obama founded ISIS"

This series of The Apprentice has so many twists.

Exeggcute

K-9 wrote: »

The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republic in the White House.

True but one difference between Trump and Hillary is Trump wants to work with Putin to smash ISIS.

Hillary will double down on arming them to overthrow Assad.

Which option do you think is worse?

Billy86

A Little Pony wrote: »

The fact that post got 9 likes shows just how little some people on here know about American history and the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers would be campaigning day and night to make sure Hillary didn't get in to destroy the 2nd Amendment as it is. They believed in the right of the citizens to arm themselves in case a government becomes overbearing.

Would the founding fathers also have their slaves with them? They'd be well pissed off at those being gone too I reckon.

donald trump looks like the villain in a movie where the hero is a dog

Pro Hoc Vice

Billy86 wrote: »

Would the founding fathers also have their slaves with them? They'd be well pissed off at those being gone too I reckon.

Who for tax and representation purposes used to be counted as 3/5 of a man.

Foxtrol

A Little Pony wrote: »

The fact that post got 9 likes shows just how little some people on here know about American history and the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers would be campaigning day and night to make sure Hillary didn't get in to destroy the 2nd Amendment as it is. They believed in the right of the citizens to arm themselves in case a government becomes overbearing.

It’s laughable if you think ‘a well armed’ militia could do anything significant against the US military/law enforcement if a government became overbearing.

I’ll try to look for it but I remember a general literally laughing when a reporter asked him about 2nd amendment rights and how it currently gives people the power to rebel.

Those who quote that portion of the amendment, in a way to make out that they currently have any sort of power (aside from the power to shoot deer, a burglar, their wife, a school full of kids) , are totally deluding themselves.