The Next American President Thread (2016)

134689198

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    9/11 was 20 guys with box cutters and a few flying lessons.
    And the funding to get in with a free pass. No Air Martials due to funding cuts. Lax airport security due to funding cuts.
    We have to work smarter, not harder.


  • Posts: 1,631
    Just because some will slip through doesn't mean that nothing should be done. There's nothing wrong with knowing who is coming into the country. It's not just about stopping international terrorism, but also stemming the flow of drugs into the US, as well as making it more difficult for lower-level criminals to get into the country.

    A lot of the reform will have to happen on the bureaucratic level. But it's not crazy to suggest that the border at least be made more secure than it is. Surely there are ways to do this, given the technology the government has, to do this without going to an extreme.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    9/11 was 20 guys with box cutters and a few flying lessons.
    And the funding to get in with a free pass. No Air Martials due to funding cuts. Lax airport security due to funding cuts.
    We have to work smarter, not harder.


    ...and, let it not be forgotten, a President who was repeatedly warned by his intelligence services that Muslim extremists were planning an attack using hijacked aircraft...and his response was "Okay, you've covered your ass." I should hope it'll be easy for just about ANYBODY to work smarter than GWB.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    9/11 was 20 guys with box cutters and a few flying lessons.
    And the funding to get in with a free pass. No Air Martials due to funding cuts. Lax airport security due to funding cuts.
    We have to work smarter, not harder.
    ...and, let it not be forgotten, a President who was repeatedly warned by his intelligence services that Muslim extremists were planning an attack using hijacked aircraft...and his response was "Okay, you've covered your ass." I should hope it'll be easy for just about ANYBODY to work smarter than GWB.
    I don't blame GWB as he is a 100 IQ average dude- easily manipulated by Darth Cheney Vader :))
    Worked out well for everyone!
    Well, except for the peeps in the towers, the first respondents, the Iraq War vets, the American economy...etc...
    But Cheney's stock soared!!! WIN!!!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Remember how he weaseled himself into the Vice Presidency? He was tasked with finding the most suitable candidate. Who did he come up with? Himself! Laughable.

    Obviously it was a diversionary tactic to prevent media scrutiny (he would have been destroyed due to his heart issues if he hadn't used that deception to draw attention away from himself).

    This should have tipped us off to the misrepresentation and lies that was to come.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Plus, a man sending our young peeps into war that accidentally shot his friend in the face during bird hunting.
    But all this is distracting. And a disgrace. Big money rules, and we only have power in votes. Sort of.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I too wanted to place a wager with @Bondjames on a Hillary v Trump election. Believe me, the Democrats are gleeful at the prospect of facing him in a general election.
    I think the reason that Trump resonates so much with voters is that he is the only candidate that seems to be taking the issues of illegal immigration and terrorism seriously.

    I'm not sure why you think this. Because he advocates nonsense like building a great wall of mexico or adopting General Pershing tactics (that will certainly cause more backlash)? Blustering doesn't equal taking things seriously.
    No, Trump's idea isn't a good one, but continuing to do virtually nothing about the border is an equally bad idea.

    Obama has deported record numbers of illegal immigrants (look it up). Not really "doing nothing".
    You are absolutely off on this. The opposite. He will not take any of the large, traditionally liberal states. He would have to take all of the 9 swing states (Romney took one, I don't think McCain took any). He won't get the hispanic vote, he won't get the black, when laid bare he won't get any sizable percentage traditional liberal votes, he will fall big with women. The numbers don't add up.

    This is one of the best posts ITT. Too many people are looking at meaningless things like national polls (presidents aren't elected that way) and not looking at relevant (ie swing states).

    Due to demographic shifts things look worse and worse for the republicans in presidential elections. At this point "Democrat win" has to be treated as the null hypothesis. I don't see any evidence that Trump will shift those swing states that voted for Obama last time. There's not enough pissed off blue collar white people in those states. I'll try and find it later, but there was a really cool tool on a news site that had all the data from the last election including demographics, and you could shift it however you wanted to see how it would change election outcomes.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,631
    Sark wrote: »
    No, Trump's idea isn't a good one, but continuing to do virtually nothing about the border is an equally bad idea.

    Obama has deported record numbers of illegal immigrants (look it up). Not really "doing nothing".

    I didn't need to look it up, as I'm well aware of that. Deporting people that are here illegally and potentially pose some kind of threat is something the government should be doing. But that's not securing the border. They're still doing very little to secure the actual border.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Sark wrote: »
    I too wanted to place a wager with @Bondjames on a Hillary v Trump election. Believe me, the Democrats are gleeful at the prospect of facing him in a general election.
    I am aware that some are. Or so they say. If he is the nominee, and he is up against Hillary, they are in for a surprise.
    Sark wrote: »
    Due to demographic shifts things look worse and worse for the republicans in presidential elections.
    Yes, I know this. That is based on previous elections.
    Sark wrote: »
    At this point "Democrat win" has to be treated as the null hypothesis.
    Yes, you're probably right, but only because Hillary is a known quantity and is the successor to the incumbent.
    Sark wrote: »
    I don't see any evidence that Trump will shift those swing states that voted for Obama last time. There's not enough pissed off blue collar white people in those states.
    This is where I disagree. If it's a Hillary vs. Trump election, it won't be only the pissed off blue collar white voter who will vote for Trump. This is where the mistake is being made imho. You're correct there is no evidence yet to show that Trump will shift voters away. The operative word here is 'yet'. That's the thing about phenomenons. They tend to surprise people.

    I shouldn't have said what I said about it being a landslide. US elections tend to be relatively close on popular vote. It's the electoral college that will determine where things end up, and there are a number of options for Trump (if it's him) to win. More so than any other Republican candidate imho because he can redraw the map more than any other candidate can on that side. It will be a 'go big' or 'go home' type situation with Trump. He will either do very well, or he will implode. That's why it could be a lot of fun to watch..
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    bondjames wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    I too wanted to place a wager with @Bondjames on a Hillary v Trump election. Believe me, the Democrats are gleeful at the prospect of facing him in a general election.
    I am aware that some are. Or so they say. If he is the nominee, and he is up against Hillary, they are in for a surprise.
    Sark wrote: »
    Due to demographic shifts things look worse and worse for the republicans in presidential elections.
    Yes, I know this. That is based on previous elections.
    Sark wrote: »
    At this point "Democrat win" has to be treated as the null hypothesis.
    Yes, you're probably right, but only because Hillary is a known quantity and is the successor to the incumbent.
    Sark wrote: »
    I don't see any evidence that Trump will shift those swing states that voted for Obama last time. There's not enough pissed off blue collar white people in those states.
    This is where I disagree. If it's a Hillary vs. Trump election, it won't be only the pissed off blue collar white voter who will vote for Trump. This is where the mistake is being made imho. You're correct there is no evidence yet to show that Trump will shift voters away. The operative word here is 'yet'. That's the thing about phenomenons. They tend to surprise people.

    I shouldn't have said what I said about it being a landslide. US elections tend to be relatively close on popular vote. It's the electoral college that will determine where things end up, and there are a number of options for Trump (if it's him) to win. More so than any other Republican candidate imho because he can redraw the map more than any other candidate can on that side. It will be a 'go big' or 'go home' type situation with Trump. He will either do very well, or he will implode. That's why it could be a lot of fun to watch..

    Problem is, Trump has given the DNC terrific sound bytes that will play really well in September and October. His bigotry and sexism won't play well when the chips are down.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Part of me still thinks Trump is more surprised than anybody by this, because he was never serious. He just loves the ego trip and publicity. I think it was just a game to him for a very long time. And no, he is in no way qualified. Yes, it is embarrassing this many people are voting for him.

    I'm voting for Clinton (via mail; I still live overseas).
  • SerialHitmanSerialHitman Plotting my revenge
    Posts: 45
    Of course Donald Trump isn't serious. It's been hilarious watching the rise of his campaign just because of how obvious it is he has no idea how to run a country. It's going to be Clinton, she's in bed with enough of the major banks that everyone will end up voting for her.
  • TripAces wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Border security is something that has been long overdue to be discussed and actually fixed on the national level. I'm not one that's living in daily fear of a terrorist attack, but at the same time, there has to be some kind of common sense way for both parties to come together and make the border more secure.

    Between the drug trade and the potential for both criminals and terrorists to come across an unguarded border, it only makes sense to do something, even if the actual chances of something that we'd label as a terrorist attack is statistically low.

    Agreed 100%!

    Border security was NEVER an issue for six years under Republican leadership. Even after 9/11, even after Michael Moore, of all people, pointed out lax security along our shores, not a single Republican made a bluster of border control and a better equipped Coast Guard. What happened was the economic downturn in 2007...and then, and only then, were the "illegals" seen as a problem. It was all of a sudden, with the "Muslim" "terrorist/illegal sympathizer" coming on board, that this become a hot-button issue.

    That's exactly why Trump is so popular right now. Because the rest of the Republicans didn't give a care, and most who still don't. Trump is not part of the Republican establishment, and that's why much of the rest of the Republican party is hostile towards him.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by the borders being wide-open for people with money. Please clarify.
    Most peeps coming here face months or even years of processing. Money greases that slow wheel. Our own intelligence community identifies those on the fast track, as they did with the Saudi-funded creeps, but since the Saudi's are out 'pals' the red flag was nixed by the higher ups that didn't want a 'problem'. Regular ass*oles wanting to f**k with us are held up, and properly inspected.

    Gotcha. I actually agree with you on this and your following posts. No more nation building! And I'm no Cheney fan either. It's one thing to root out terrorists through some quick raids and by stepping up security here at home. It's quite another to try to establish democracy in a country that has never embraced for over 1500 years! This has caused a huge divide in the Republican party and is the reason why Trump is so popular at the moment.

    I don't think GWB was a bad person. I think he had his heart in the right place. But he was advised by some pretty stupid people in their own right (or maybe pretty shrewd if we look at Cheney's bank account!). If a country wants to make a change in direction, it has to come from within. A lot of Iraqis were appreciative of what we did, but that was probably a very small minority. I know I wouldn't want some other countries army coming in here telling us how to live!
  • Of course Donald Trump isn't serious. It's been hilarious watching the rise of his campaign just because of how obvious it is he has no idea how to run a country. It's going to be Clinton, she's in bed with enough of the major banks that everyone will end up voting for her.

    Well, if he's not serious, then I expect him to pull a "Ross Perot" and quit before the Republican convention citing "threats to his family" or some other nonsense like Perot did!
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I shouldn't have said what I said about it being a landslide. US elections tend to be relatively close on popular vote. It's the electoral college that will determine where things end up, and there are a number of options for Trump (if it's him) to win. More so than any other Republican candidate imho because he can redraw the map more than any other candidate can on that side. It will be a 'go big' or 'go home' type situation with Trump. He will either do very well, or he will implode. That's why it could be a lot of fun to watch..

    Let's assume that at least 40/50 states are 'safe states' that won't change parties regardless of the nominees (I think that's a pretty safe assumption). Of the remaining ten states, which ones do you think have a 50%+ chance of going TRUMP?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Sark wrote: »
    I shouldn't have said what I said about it being a landslide. US elections tend to be relatively close on popular vote. It's the electoral college that will determine where things end up, and there are a number of options for Trump (if it's him) to win. More so than any other Republican candidate imho because he can redraw the map more than any other candidate can on that side. It will be a 'go big' or 'go home' type situation with Trump. He will either do very well, or he will implode. That's why it could be a lot of fun to watch..

    Let's assume that at least 40/50 states are 'safe states' that won't change parties regardless of the nominees (I think that's a pretty safe assumption). Of the remaining ten states, which ones do you think have a 50%+ chance of going TRUMP?
    I'd prefer not to make these sort of predictions this early in the game for the following reasons:

    1. Trump could still implode over the next few weeks (which will be critical). The entire GOP establishment has a couple of weeks at best to destroy him.
    2. Trump could yet back out and endorse Rubio, which I mentioned a while back on this thread is a real possibility.

    I agree with comments that he is as surprised as anyone by his performance to date. One can see that. This indicates to me that he wasn't all that serious at the start of it all, so as I said earlier on this thread, does he have what it takes to continue - or will he pull out?

    Having said that, if he decides to stay on, and if he's not destroyed in the next couple of weeks, then I believe he will beat Hillary and take the presidency. Reasons, at a high level, are as follows:

    1. America is not a dynastic nation. They tried that once recently and it was an unmitigated disaster. Memories are still raw
    2. Trump represents the 'outsider' perspective. That is a stronger history making inducement than the first woman president.
    3. Trump is far more formidable than McCain and Romney. He has proven that so far (in terms of getting turnout on the Repub side). Hillary is not as formidable as Obama (she has proven that so far on the Dem side, where she has had some trouble to date in trying to take out an avowed 74 yr old socialist no less)
    4. Trump is seen as more authentic with the electorate (no matter what people think of him) and that quality usually wins US elections. That is Hillary's #1 problem.
    5. Trump has proven to date to be like Teflon. Usually candidates with this quality end up winning (Reagan, Clinton, Obama).

    This is his election to lose. He will determine if he screws up or not imho. She can throw everything and the kitchen sink at him, but he alone will either self-impode or not.

    So let's revisit if he is in fact the nominee, and he has a ways to go to secure it and decide if he's in this for the long haul.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    If anyone else besides feels the same about Trumps chances in a general election vs Hillary (assuming no third parties like Bloomberg enter the race) I'd love a friendly wager.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    No betting right now. Let's see what happens in two to three weeks because all bets may be off by then.

    Then it gets interesting, because it could by then become essentially a two man (woman) race.

    Keep in mind that Hillary could select a very interesting VP candidate from outside the political realm to counter Trump (it it's him). That could reset the whole thing again.

    Lots of variables.
  • Posts: 1,631
    bondjames wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    I shouldn't have said what I said about it being a landslide. US elections tend to be relatively close on popular vote. It's the electoral college that will determine where things end up, and there are a number of options for Trump (if it's him) to win. More so than any other Republican candidate imho because he can redraw the map more than any other candidate can on that side. It will be a 'go big' or 'go home' type situation with Trump. He will either do very well, or he will implode. That's why it could be a lot of fun to watch..

    Let's assume that at least 40/50 states are 'safe states' that won't change parties regardless of the nominees (I think that's a pretty safe assumption). Of the remaining ten states, which ones do you think have a 50%+ chance of going TRUMP?
    I'd prefer not to make these sort of predictions this early in the game for the following reasons:

    1. Trump could still implode over the next few weeks (which will be critical). The entire GOP establishment has a couple of weeks at best to destroy him.
    2. Trump could yet back out and endorse Rubio, which I mentioned a while back on this thread is a real possibility.

    I agree with comments that he is as surprised as anyone by his performance to date. One can see that. This indicates to me that he wasn't all that serious at the start of it all, so as I said earlier on this thread, does he have what it takes to continue - or will he pull out?

    Having said that, if he decides to stay on, and if he's not destroyed in the next couple of weeks, then I believe he will beat Hillary and take the presidency. Reasons, at a high level, are as follows:

    1. America is not a dynastic nation. They tried that once recently and it was an unmitigated disaster. Memories are still raw
    2. Trump represents the 'outsider' perspective. That is a stronger history making inducement than the first woman president.
    3. Trump is far more formidable than McCain and Romney. He has proven that so far (in terms of getting turnout on the Repub side). Hillary is not as formidable as Obama (she has proven that so far on the Dem side, where she has had some trouble to date in trying to take out an avowed 74 yr old socialist no less)
    4. Trump is seen as more authentic with the electorate (no matter what people think of him) and that quality usually wins US elections. That is Hillary's #1 problem.
    5. Trump has proven to date to be like Teflon. Usually candidates with this quality end up winning (Reagan, Clinton, Obama).

    This is his election to lose. He will determine if he screws up or not imho. She can throw everything and the kitchen sink at him, but he alone will either self-impode or not.

    So let's revisit if he is in fact the nominee, and he has a ways to go to secure it and decide if he's in this for the long haul.

    Agreed.

    The reason that Bernie and Trump are doing as well as they are is because the population of the US is fed up with establishment politics, on both sides of the aisle. There are also a lot of Bernie supporters who will jump ship to the Republican side if Hillary gets the nod because they despise the fact that they feel the DNC has made it impossible for a true reform candidate to win the nomination and have stacked the deck overwhelmingly in Clinton's favor.

    So far, Trump has broken all of the rules and defied every single piece of conventional wisdom laid forth by the pundits and analysts, all of whom have been around for a long time and are paid to know how the political game works. If they can't prognosticate this race correctly, then there's no reason to believe that the race will continue going down a traditional path until it finally does prove itself to be a conventional race.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    TripAces wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Border security is something that has been long overdue to be discussed and actually fixed on the national level. I'm not one that's living in daily fear of a terrorist attack, but at the same time, there has to be some kind of common sense way for both parties to come together and make the border more secure.

    Between the drug trade and the potential for both criminals and terrorists to come across an unguarded border, it only makes sense to do something, even if the actual chances of something that we'd label as a terrorist attack is statistically low.

    Agreed 100%!

    Border security was NEVER an issue for six years under Republican leadership. Even after 9/11, even after Michael Moore, of all people, pointed out lax security along our shores, not a single Republican made a bluster of border control and a better equipped Coast Guard. What happened was the economic downturn in 2007...and then, and only then, were the "illegals" seen as a problem. It was all of a sudden, with the "Muslim" "terrorist/illegal sympathizer" coming on board, that this become a hot-button issue.

    That's exactly why Trump is so popular right now. Because the rest of the Republicans didn't give a care, and most who still don't. Trump is not part of the Republican establishment, and that's why much of the rest of the Republican party is hostile towards him.

    I don't know if they (or even Trump) truly cares. It became an issue because Fox News turned it into one...and that's why the Repubs and now Trump have been running with it. It's a hot button issue. The conservatives don't want to blame the economic collapse on CEOs, so instead they'll blame a bunch of illegals working in kitchens and car washes for $2/hour.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,449
    It'll be Trump against either Sanders or Clinton, for sure. As stated before, if Trump or Cruz don't win, then I win.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It'll be Trump against either Sanders or Clinton, for sure. As stated before, if Trump or Cruz don't win, then I win.

    It's going to be Clinton. I am not 100% certain (maybe because I don't want to be) that Trump will get the nom from the Repubs. I can't fathom that. I still see Rubio as the most attractive choice (now that kasich and Jeb are out).

    Regardless, I'd say that Hillary is by far the odds-on choice to be sworn in next January.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    TripAces wrote: »
    Regardless, I'd say that Hillary is by far the odds-on choice to be sworn in next January.

    nomorepeassmall.JPG
  • Posts: 1,631
    Given how much Rubio likes to talk about how Clinton is "disqualified" from being the president during these debates, someone ought to tell him that he should be "disqualified" in the race. The man doesn't show up to work, practically getting paid by the taxpayers of Florida to not represent them in the Senate. He's missed 60% of the foreign relations committee meetings, meetings which he uses to prop himself up as the most experienced Republican candidate when it comes to foreign policy.

    John Kasich needs to come out, maybe even joining forces somewhat with Trump, and try to knock Rubio from his perch once again. They've only got the one shot at it, Thursday night in Texas, but it needs to happen. It helps them to have multiple candidates going after Rubio in much the same way it helped Sanders to have O'Malley on the stage with him hammering Clinton from both sides. I don't think Bernie has bee quite as effective since O'Malley departed, at least when it comes to debating Clinton.

    The only thing Rubio has going for him is that he looks good on TV. That's pretty much it. The fact that nobody has hammered him hard on not doing the job he was elected to do astounds me, because if they had, he wouldn't be in the position he is today as the establishment's "consensus" choice.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    We heard about that Automaton even over here. How come these people think they are able to lead something as big and complex as the USA? Most of these people couldn t even run Vanuatu.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,449
    I've seen a lot of people give Bernie Sanders a hard time for his age (74), but to those who do, don't they realize that Donald Trump will be 70 in June and Clinton will be 69 in October? They're all old farts.
  • Posts: 1,631
    We heard about that Automaton even over here. How come these people think they are able to lead something as big and complex as the USA? Most of these people couldn t even run Vanuatu.

    It's because the process that it takes to actually make it to the general election and the White House weeds out all of the good candidates. It's been a long time since we've had a truly good candidate run for the presidency.

    Rubio is a joke, quite literally one actually after he revealed himself to be a soundbite memorizing robot. The man can't even find his way to work yet has somehow convinced 22% of the Republican party that he's qualified to lead the United States government.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2016 Posts: 17,687
    Presidential double post
This discussion has been closed.