What's Trump up to?

[jgordon1111]

We all know which party favours the rich, thus their popularity with the rich, corporations, and the dumb blind followers and hangers on.

Actually, I don't think most people do know which party favors the rich, corporations, and dumb blind followers and hangers on. I think people believe that they know, but they don't.

Greek is that your way of hinting the best option is independent?

[notyou2]

He is a Republican and has always been one.

He was registered Democrat for about 9 years and donated quite a lot of money to them.

NY2 was probably trolling (in a completely legal way). In one of the debates, someone (Bush maybe?) was making a deal about how Trump had donated to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, etc. and Trump responded with the best thing he's ever said in this campaign season (and something that gets very little play for obvious reasons) that he, like all rich people and businesses, donates to both parties.

Thank you tgd. In Canada many people and companies donate to both of the two main parties, ad some even to other less influential parties as well as the main two. However, donation amounts are limited in this country.

When I said he was "Republican" I was referring to what I believe his personal leanings are and have always been, and the fact that he is running for that party confirms my opinion. We all know which party favours the rich, thus their popularity with the rich, corporations, and the dumb blind followers and hangers on.

Donations weren't the only thing I mentioned. He was also affiliated Democrat.

I mean, this is the guy who once said 'I probably identify more as a Democrat'.

If he ID's as a democrat, why is he running republican?????????????


Exactly, he's a republican, that's how you tell.

[muy_thaiguy]

Trump also received a heart warming endorsement from some of GoranZ's favorite and like-minded kind of people.
http://www.dailystormer.com/the-daily-s ... president/

[notyou2]

If Trump gets the candidacy, it will set the Republicans back 10 years. People will flee like it has the plague, EXCEPT, under paid, under educated, sexually frustrated, middle aged white guys, so about 15% of the US population, but probably 30-40% of the voting population.

[thegreekdog]

We all know which party favours the rich, thus their popularity with the rich, corporations, and the dumb blind followers and hangers on.

Actually, I don't think most people do know which party favors the rich, corporations, and dumb blind followers and hangers on. I think people believe that they know, but they don't.

Greek is that your way of hinting the best option is independent?

So many answers to that question. My point of view is:

(1) Figure out what you care about.
(2) Learn as much as you can about issues you care about.
(3) Learn about the candidates and how they feel about the issues you care about and, most importantly, why.
(4) Support those candidates and positions.

I hate saying this, but voting doesn't help anything. You need to give money or time or effort to support issues you care about. I don't do any of that stuff other than here and with my family and friends. Every politician has an agenda. Once I can figure out what the agenda is, it helps me better understand the candidate. There is nothing worse than someone who just doesn't have the background to be able to accurately indicate why he or she supports a candidate. For example, Democrats are going to vote for Hillary Clinton, but she's not really liberal in any meaningful way other than in her support for abortion. So, if I was a liberal Democrat (like some of my friends), I would be voting for Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, but liberal Democrats are voting for Hillary Clinton. But my friends don't know anything about Hillary Clinton. And that's what politicians bank on - people not really knowing (or caring) what someone is going to do once they are elected.

So, that may all point you to voting independent, but there is usually a candidate or party or group who gets 90% of the way there. For example, if I look at the current crop of Republican and Democratic candidates, the best example of someone who believes the same way I do is Rand Paul. But I don't agree with Rand Paul on everything, so he's not the perfect candidate for me, he's just the best one. I also like Bernie Sanders, only because he's actually liberal.

[mrswdk]

He is a Republican and has always been one.

He was registered Democrat for about 9 years and donated quite a lot of money to them.

NY2 was probably trolling (in a completely legal way). In one of the debates, someone (Bush maybe?) was making a deal about how Trump had donated to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, etc. and Trump responded with the best thing he's ever said in this campaign season (and something that gets very little play for obvious reasons) that he, like all rich people and businesses, donates to both parties.

Thank you tgd. In Canada many people and companies donate to both of the two main parties, ad some even to other less influential parties as well as the main two. However, donation amounts are limited in this country.

When I said he was "Republican" I was referring to what I believe his personal leanings are and have always been, and the fact that he is running for that party confirms my opinion. We all know which party favours the rich, thus their popularity with the rich, corporations, and the dumb blind followers and hangers on.

Donations weren't the only thing I mentioned. He was also affiliated Democrat.

I mean, this is the guy who once said 'I probably identify more as a Democrat'.

If he ID's as a democrat, why is he running republican?????????????


Exactly, he's a republican, that's how you tell.

I refer you to the poll in OP for more information.

[thegreekdog]

I was going to create a new politics thread just to annoy AoG, but I thought this was a good enough place.

I watched most of the debate last night. Loved it. Absolutely loved it. A couple of observations (having not read any commentary on Twitter, CNN, etc.):

- Donald Trump did a bad job, but that was to be expected since he doesn't have the national security or international relations chops as compared to anyone else other than Ben Carson.
- Chris Christie made a couple of ridiculous comments. The first, and the one that will get airplay, is his insistence on going to war with Russia. The second, which will get less airplay, is his idea that these concepts are simple. He made a comment about the senate being too complicated. Well, it fucking is complicated! You need to have good judgment to be president. I would direct that at Kascich (who seemed hawkish) and Trump as well.

I thought some combination of Rubio and Cruz did the best jobs. I would put Rubio ahead of Cruz since he seems to be a better public speaker (even though Cruz should be the best up there given his background). I thought Fiorina did well, but she didn't get much airplay. I also thought Rand Paul did well, although I'm obviously biased. Bush seemed like a jackass. I know his anti-Trump comments will get a lot of airplay, but it just seemed bad.

So...

Winners: Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Fiorina
Losers: Trump, Bush, Christie
Ties: Kascich, Carson

[jgordon1111]

We all know which party favours the rich, thus their popularity with the rich, corporations, and the dumb blind followers and hangers on.

Actually, I don't think most people do know which party favors the rich, corporations, and dumb blind followers and hangers on. I think people believe that they know, but they don't.

Greek is that your way of hinting the best option is independent?

So many answers to that question. My point of view is:

(1) Figure out what you care about.
(2) Learn as much as you can about issues you care about.
(3) Learn about the candidates and how they feel about the issues you care about and, most importantly, why.
(4) Support those candidates and positions.

I hate saying this, but voting doesn't help anything. You need to give money or time or effort to support issues you care about. I don't do any of that stuff other than here and with my family and friends. Every politician has an agenda. Once I can figure out what the agenda is, it helps me better understand the candidate. There is nothing worse than someone who just doesn't have the background to be able to accurately indicate why he or she supports a candidate. For example, Democrats are going to vote for Hillary Clinton, but she's not really liberal in any meaningful way other than in her support for abortion. So, if I was a liberal Democrat (like some of my friends), I would be voting for Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, but liberal Democrats are voting for Hillary Clinton. But my friends don't know anything about Hillary Clinton. And that's what politicians bank on - people not really knowing (or caring) what someone is going to do once they are elected.

So, that may all point you to voting independent, but there is usually a candidate or party or group who gets 90% of the way there. For example, if I look at the current crop of Republican and Democratic candidates, the best example of someone who believes the same way I do is Rand Paul. But I don't agree with Rand Paul on everything, so he's not the perfect candidate for me, he's just the best one. I also like Bernie Sanders, only because he's actually liberal.

Lol Greek I use a more scientific approach.
I watch all of them from day one,looking to see if any backpedal on anything they prevously said, but in the end it comes down to body language and speech patterns, and I just go with the one I think lied the least and will at least try to do what they said.

[tzor]

If he ID's as a democrat, why is he running republican?????????????

What's a Republican?
What's a Democrat?

Seriously. The official political parties are a joke. It is the factions within the parties that are the major powers these days. Trump is going as a Republican because he can. He could not get into the Democratic stage. Even then the establishment are still saying that if he wins the nomination, they are going to fund and vote for Hillary.

[betiko]

like you'd imagine a democrat candidate say as much bigoted stuff in a lifetime as Trumpet.

[thegreekdog]

like you'd imagine a democrat candidate say as much bigoted stuff in a lifetime as Trumpet.

I think you mean modern Democratic candidate.

[mrswdk]

like you'd imagine a democrat candidate say as much bigoted stuff in a lifetime as Trumpet.

I think you mean modern Democratic candidate.

I think you mean postmodern Democratic member.

[Metsfanmax]

What's Rubio up to?

[jgordon1111]

I was going to create a new politics thread just to annoy AoG, but I thought this was a good enough place.

I watched most of the debate last night. Loved it. Absolutely loved it. A couple of observations (having not read any commentary on Twitter, CNN, etc.):

- Donald Trump did a bad job, but that was to be expected since he doesn't have the national security or international relations chops as compared to anyone else other than Ben Carson.
- Chris Christie made a couple of ridiculous comments. The first, and the one that will get airplay, is his insistence on going to war with Russia. The second, which will get less airplay, is his idea that these concepts are simple. He made a comment about the senate being too complicated. Well, it fucking is complicated! You need to have good judgment to be president. I would direct that at Kascich (who seemed hawkish) and Trump as well.

I thought some combination of Rubio and Cruz did the best jobs. I would put Rubio ahead of Cruz since he seems to be a better public speaker (even though Cruz should be the best up there given his background). I thought Fiorina did well, but she didn't get much airplay. I also thought Rand Paul did well, although I'm obviously biased. Bush seemed like a jackass. I know his anti-Trump comments will get a lot of airplay, but it just seemed bad.

So...

Winners: Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Fiorina
Losers: Trump, Bush, Christie
Ties: Kascich, Carson

Well Greek at least in your lineup you put Cruz first, Rubio demonstrated his ignorance or lack of knowledge when he said Cruz was discussing classified info on public tv. Wrong answer dipstick, nothing said was classified.but he showed who and what he was right there, not a chance in hell I would vote for him

[notyou2]

Cruise is almost as big a bigot as sTrumpet

[jgordon1111]

Cruise is almost as big a bigot as sTrumpet

Really and where do you you draw that info from, and if you say All republicans are bigots remember Carson is a republican,

[waauw]

Cruise is almost as big a bigot as sTrumpet

[jgordon1111]

Cruise is almost as big a bigot as sTrumpet

Yes I realized he didn't spell it right, unless he went on a tangent and I didn't realize it.

[Metsfanmax]

Wait, Tom Cruise is not in the Republican primary? It's been so hard to keep track of them all.

[iAmCaffeine]

Trump is currently up to 6'16 (1.88m).

[tzor]

like you'd imagine a democrat candidate say as much bigoted stuff in a lifetime as Trumpet.

Why yes, actually ...

“Look at what they [Republicans] value, and look at their budget. And look what they're proposing. [Romney] said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains." --Joe Biden, speaking to a largely African-American audience in Danville, Va., Aug. 14, 2012

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." –Joe Biden, referring to Barack Obama at the beginning of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, Jan. 31, 2007

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." --Joe Biden, in a private remark to an Indian-American man caught on C-SPAN, June, 2006

"A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been getting us coffee." -- Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy

"(Harry Reid) was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." -- Harry Reid's comments reported by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann

[jimboston]

Sarah Palin was the Governor of a State no one paid attention to.

O'RLY? No one pays attention to the state of Alaska? That's news to me. I can see the occasional "Fly Over" State, but there are plenty of issues that keeps the state of Alaska on the national news for as many decades as I can remember.
8

After her failed run as VP; she did "take it on the chin" from a number of late-night comedians, pundits, and politicians. This verbal abuse was not unearned... as she is a true idiot.

REALLY? SHE IS "a true idiot?" According to whom? You? The one who has never noticed all the news items on the networks that covers Alaska? The one who thinks $125K is a millionaire salary? My god dammed small town Supervisor is getting $115K

I don't think she's completely dumb; but I do think she was too dumb to keep her mouth shut on issues that she knew nothing about.

Are you talking about Palin or Trump?

And wealth doesn't mean one is not obscure. Former Governor Pataki is still fairly well off but few people even know he is currently a candidate for president. And NEW YORK ain't Alaska.

No one pays attention to Alaska... unless it involves oil, polar bears, or ice-road truckers.
Seriously... who ever heard of Sarah Palin prior to her run on the Republican Ticket.
No One... certainly not the people who vetted her.

I never said $125K was a "millionaire salary".
I did say it put her in the Top 5% of wage earners in Alaska... maybe the Top 1%.

She is an idiot if she believes people and dinosaurs existed on this earth at the same time.

[Ray Rider]

I was going to create a new politics thread just to annoy AoG, but I thought this was a good enough place.

I watched most of the debate last night. Loved it. Absolutely loved it. A couple of observations (having not read any commentary on Twitter, CNN, etc.):

- Donald Trump did a bad job, but that was to be expected since he doesn't have the national security or international relations chops as compared to anyone else other than Ben Carson.
- Chris Christie made a couple of ridiculous comments. The first, and the one that will get airplay, is his insistence on going to war with Russia. The second, which will get less airplay, is his idea that these concepts are simple. He made a comment about the senate being too complicated. Well, it fucking is complicated! You need to have good judgment to be president. I would direct that at Kascich (who seemed hawkish) and Trump as well.

I thought some combination of Rubio and Cruz did the best jobs. I would put Rubio ahead of Cruz since he seems to be a better public speaker (even though Cruz should be the best up there given his background). I thought Fiorina did well, but she didn't get much airplay. I also thought Rand Paul did well, although I'm obviously biased. Bush seemed like a jackass. I know his anti-Trump comments will get a lot of airplay, but it just seemed bad.

So...

Winners: Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Fiorina
Losers: Trump, Bush, Christie
Ties: Kascich, Carson

I agree for the most part. Rubio had a strong night; there were times when he was attacked from multiple sides and he kept responding with "Okay 3 things..." and he'd list off, point by point, the discrepancies in their arguments. He is always calm, confident, and quick witted--highly impressive overall. Cruz is also a strong communicator and debator, although I've always felt he gives off a smarmy impression--always seems like the snake-oil salesman in the room. Much as I try to like him and I agree with his stance on intrusive government intelligence gathering methods, I just can't get used to him. Oh, and I think Rubio has the most reasonable approach to illegal immigration (seal the border, send any lawbreakers home, and in time move towards amnesty for the peaceable, productive aliens who remain) and Syria (we need boots on the ground, but they must be Sunni Arab forces). Cruz shows his radical side by cozying up with Trump's crazy immigration policies and promising to carpet bomb the desert til it glows. Seriously, ISIS isn't like the Iraqi forces in the first gulf war--there are no convoys of armored divisions to destroy or squadrons of aircraft to bomb.

I agree that Paul had a great night as well, and sometimes gave the impression of being the only adult the room. This was emphasized by his position juxtaposed against Christie's warmongering rhetoric against Russia, which was ridiculous. I don't understand why Paul doesn't have more support; I would expect him to gain all the old Ron Paul supports while adding to that because he's young and talks coherently rather sounding like an old grandpa on a rant (no offense to Ron Paul).

Fiorina I didn't even notice in the debate. She's been eclisped by others who are stronger than her and by those who make flamboyant statements.

Trump was Trump as always. I thought it was unbelievable how he got a free pass on so many of his statements such as "going after" the families of terrorists or after saying Cruz was a maniac, changing his mind in three days. It just shows how unserious he is, and I can sort of understand Rubio's view who, when asked why he didn't attack Trump, said that it was worth his time--Trump's ideas can't be taken seriously.

Christie did well...for those who agree with him. I thought it displayed how unqualified he was when he bragged about shooting down Russian planes and, as you mentioned, dismissed the detailed parts of the debate as being part of the problem of Washington.

Jeb Bush put on his big boy pants, did his best to take on Trump, and had his best performance so far but still didn't come across as a leader. He seriously needs to be freed from the primaries. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/t ... b-petition

Carson was clearly out of his depth, as has been evident for a long time; and Kasich should've been gone after the last debate.

So overall:
Winners: Rubio, Cruz, Paul
Losers: Bush, Carson, Kasich
Meh: Trump, Christie, Fiorina

[luns101]

I haven't followed the Trump campaign at all, so I have no solid evidence for anything. I think he started as a kind of game or to see what would happen (i.e. feed his ego). Once he started winning polls, I think he now thinks he can win and he thinks he can win without changing what he does. A lot of my family and friends are conservatives. Not one of them is a Trump supporter. I wonder if Trump is like Nickelback - popular, sells lots of albums, but no one admits to liking him/them.

Couldn't help but be reminded of Robert Redford in The Candidate after reading this post^. It's a must-see if you haven't checked it out already. Being a conservative myself, I can understand why none of your family/friends would vote for the guy. Good night, he's ridiculing Carson or Cruz as being mentally unstable one day, and then saying they're fine men the next.

If he not only got the nomination, but won the general, he'd better have a group of steady and calm individuals willing to set him straight within the Cabinet and Joint Chiefs. I shudder to think of his finger on that launch button.

[Ray Rider]

I haven't followed the Trump campaign at all, so I have no solid evidence for anything. I think he started as a kind of game or to see what would happen (i.e. feed his ego). Once he started winning polls, I think he now thinks he can win and he thinks he can win without changing what he does. A lot of my family and friends are conservatives. Not one of them is a Trump supporter. I wonder if Trump is like Nickelback - popular, sells lots of albums, but no one admits to liking him/them.

Couldn't help but be reminded of Robert Redford in The Candidate after reading this post^. It's a must-see if you haven't checked it out already. Being a conservative myself, I can understand why none of your family/friends would vote for the guy. Good night, he's ridiculing Carson or Cruz as being mentally unstable one day, and then saying they're fine men the next.

If he not only got the nomination, but won the general, he'd better have a group of steady and calm individuals willing to set him straight within the Cabinet and Joint Chiefs. I shudder to think of his finger on that launch button.

The chance of him winning either of those is extremely slim imho. He's had his chance in the limelight but he'll begin to fade as support consolidates around a serious candidate. Out of curiosity, who's your top two picks of all the candidates?