The Next President of the United States: II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1022

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I think more people are in line with your view than they are willing to admit publicly. When Carson declines, Trump is going to pick up those voters. We are seeing the Obama effect of 2008 right now with Trump, because no one cares about the other oatmeal candidates at the moment.
[/quote]

It’s obviously dumb to make a prediction about the future, but for shits and giggles I’ll make one anyways.

I think Trump and Carson will continue to lead in the polls, and as you said Trump will pick up the numbers from Carson when he inevitably drops (or the exact opposite may happen!)

But the point is, none of the Republican establishment candidates will gain the drop-off from either.

But then Trump will not win in the primaries. Because the Republican establishment considers Trump unwinnable in the general election (sadly true, I think)

And this will cause major fractures within the Republican party, and they’ll either truly redefine themselves and get an actual bloody message besides “We’re for small government! We’re anti-establishment!” (I don’t understand how you’re supposed to support this kind of message whenever you’re actually in charge), or they’ll continue to limp on.

In any case, I support Trump for president because I think it’ll be an interesting experience. I doubt he can cause much damage (because both the Republican party AND the Democratic party will not cooperate with him in Congress), and a president that holds no influence whatsoever in Congress can’t do much of anything in long-lasting impact.

But I think having him as president will be beneficial for the future. Certainly more beneficial than having another establishment person from either party. Clinton seems dangerous beyond comprehension, Sanders has his head in the clouds (and thus dangerous as well), and none of the Republican candidates seem capable of winning the general election.

Ergo, the most likely candidate for winning the general election thus far seems to be Clinton. Which scares me. I really wish an Obama 2.0 had popped up, if nothing else than to stop Clinton again.

1023

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I think more people are in line with your view than they are willing to admit publicly. When Carson declines, Trump is going to pick up those voters. We are seeing the Obama effect of 2008 right now with Trump, because no one cares about the other oatmeal candidates at the moment.
[/quote]

It’s obviously dumb to make a prediction about the future, but for shits and giggles I’ll make one anyways.

I think Trump and Carson will continue to lead in the polls, and as you said Trump will pick up the numbers from Carson when he inevitably drops (or the exact opposite may happen!)

But the point is, none of the Republican establishment candidates will gain the drop-off from either.

But then Trump will not win in the primaries. Because the Republican establishment considers Trump unwinnable in the general election (sadly true, I think)

And this will cause major fractures within the Republican party, and they’ll either truly redefine themselves and get an actual bloody message besides “We’re for small government! We’re anti-establishment!” (I don’t understand how you’re supposed to support this kind of message whenever you’re actually in charge), or they’ll continue to limp on.

In any case, I support Trump for president because I think it’ll be an interesting experience. I doubt he can cause much damage (because both the Republican party AND the Democratic party will not cooperate with him in Congress), and a president that holds no influence whatsoever in Congress can’t do much of anything in long-lasting impact.

But I think having him as president will be beneficial for the future. Certainly more beneficial than having another establishment person from either party. Clinton seems dangerous beyond comprehension, Sanders has his head in the clouds (and thus dangerous as well), and none of the Republican candidates seem capable of winning the general election.

Ergo, the most likely candidate for winning the general election thus far seems to be Clinton. Which scares me. I really wish an Obama 2.0 had popped up, if nothing else than to stop Clinton again.[/quote]

So, what you are saying is that you’d like to see Trump win. But if he does nothing will get done because neither party will cooperate with him. D

You also said that you’d really hate to see Hillary win as it scares you. Yet, you would not support anyone who could beat her.

Do I have all of this right, if not please correct me.

Thank you.

1024

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beans,

What rights would you like to see restored/given in exchange for a universal background check program?[/quote]

Define/describe universal background check program.[/quote]

I am deferring to what Beans described above that he would be willing to trade other rights/advances, so that falls to him.

1025

[quote]ZEB wrote:

So, what you are saying is that you’d like to see Trump win. But if he does nothing will get done because neither party will cooperate with him.[/quote]

I think the very act of having Trump elected/his very presence in the White House, will ultimately be beneficial.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You also said that you’d really hate to see Hillary win as it scares you. Yet, you would not support anyone who could beat her.
[/quote]

I don’t share your opinion that any of the establishment Republican candidates can beat her in the general election. For better or for worse, the general mood of the country leans left right now on social issues.

1026

[quote]magick wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You also said that you’d really hate to see Hillary win as it scares you. Yet, you would not support anyone who could beat her.

I don’t share your opinion that any of the establishment Republican candidates can beat her in the general election. For better or for worse, the general mood of the country leans left right now on social issues.[/quote]

Perhaps some social issues, But the country does not lean left on abortion. It’s more like 50/50. Homosexual marriage has been decided by the high court so that is not even an issue. What’s left that you are calling a social issue?

Are you saying that Trump has a better chance of defeating Hillary than any other republican candidate?

1027

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You also said that you’d really hate to see Hillary win as it scares you. Yet, you would not support anyone who could beat her.

I don’t share your opinion that any of the establishment Republican candidates can beat her in the general election. For better or for worse, the general mood of the country leans left right now on social issues.[/quote]

Perhaps some social issues, But the country does not lean left on abortion. It’s more like 50/50. Homosexual marriage has been decided by the high court so that is not even an issue. What’s left that you are calling a social issue?

Are you saying that Trump has a better chance of defeating Hillary than any other republican candidate?
[/quote]

I am not sure why you stated that that country is 50/50 on abortion. Depends how you ask the question. What exactly do you think 50/50 means?

jnd

1028

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Homosexual marriage has been decided by the high court so that is not even an issue.
[/quote]

The left will try to make it an issue, at least one last time for this election hoping to bait the republican candidate into saying something stupid more than 50% of the population disagrees with.

1030

[quote]pushharder wrote:

This may seal Hillary’s tomb. I see Dems bailing like rats off the Hillary sinking ship.[/quote]

I expect a short lived media orgasm, followed by a reality check the moment he says another stupid gaffe.

1031

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beans,

What rights would you like to see restored/given in exchange for a universal background check program?[/quote]

Two sides to this question:

  1. Take the tact of “if the anti-rights crowd wants this additional infringement, and is so common sense, I want them to give up a constitutionally protected right they like, like the 1st”. Then I’d create a ludicrous limitation on their rights in the hopes they actually figure out what it is they are trying to do to people.

  2. Play it like "find, you want compromise, then give us:
    2)a) Strong language in a bill that prevents confiscation, mandatory buybacks, or banning of any particular firearm that doesn’t habitually launch explosive ammunition. (Because UBGC is defacto registration.)
    2)b) Strong language in a bill that prevents the ATF or any other agency from banning or otherwise regulating non-explosive ammo, nor the components of such ammo.
    2)c) Strong language in a bill that prevents the excessive tariff or otherwise barrier to the import of ammunition and components of said ammunition.
    2)d) Suppressors are no longer an ATF/Class 3 item. No more stamps needed.
    2)e) Repeal the Hughes Amendment.
    2)f) Strong language in a bill that prevents the banning or otherwise outlawing a firearm based on color, cosmetic features, caliber, flash suppression, noise suppression, action type, ammunition type (as long as it isn’t explosive), range, ballistics, or size.
    2)g) Elimination of short barrel rifle classification based on barrel size. If it can be fired while shouldered, it is a rifle, if not it is a pistol. No ATF or tax stamp needed in either instance.
    2)h) Strong language in a bill that prevents future magazine limitations in any way, including but not limited to caliber, capacity or capability.

That should be a decent start.

1033

Why is the Left ok doing UBC with guns but not voting ?

1034

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Perhaps some social issues, But the country does not lean left on abortion. It’s more like 50/50. Homosexual marriage has been decided by the high court so that is not even an issue. What’s left that you are calling a social issue?[/quote]

Hmm.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Are you saying that Trump has a better chance of defeating Hillary than any other republican candidate?
[/quote]

Imo, none of the Republican candidates have a chance of beating Clinton in the general election.

I find it incredibly telling that the non-politicians have the most support out of the Republican candidates thus far. This is one of the reasons why I find the narrative that Trump/Carson’s overwhelming lead over their peers won’t last unconvincing.

1035

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Why is the Left ok doing UBC with guns but not voting ? [/quote]

Because it’ll be easier to confiscate everyone’s guns when you have a record of who owns what guns.

This isn’t rocket science people!

1036

[quote]magick wrote:

Imo, none of the Republican candidates have a chance of beating Clinton in the general election.
[/quote]

Oh really? Well, I respectfully disagree with that statement. I think most republicans are capable of beating Hillary in a general election, even if not in a debate. Most people don’t trust her and there is noting new to reveal about Hilary Clinton, unless a grand jury indicts her, that would be new. People have seen her for just about 23 years and most don’t like what they see. This is what will keep her from winning the White House. To put it plainly most people just flat out don’t like her.

If you think this will suddenly change what could you possibly be basing this on?

1037

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Imo, none of the Republican candidates have a chance of beating Clinton in the general election.
[/quote]

Oh really? Well, I respectfully disagree with that statement. I think most republicans are capable of beating Hillary in a general election, even if not in a debate. Most people don’t trust her and there is noting new to reveal about Hilary Clinton, unless a grand jury indicts her, that would be new. People have seen her for just about 23 years and most don’t like what they see. This is what will keep her from winning the White House. To put it plainly most people just flat out don’t like her.

If you think this will suddenly change what could you possibly be basing this on?[/quote]

I have to agree with Magick, because the only two people turning out the vote on the Republican side are Trump and Carson.

You cannot win the game if you do not field a team.

1038

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Imo, none of the Republican candidates have a chance of beating Clinton in the general election.
[/quote]

Oh really? Well, I respectfully disagree with that statement. I think most republicans are capable of beating Hillary in a general election, even if not in a debate. Most people don’t trust her and there is noting new to reveal about Hilary Clinton, unless a grand jury indicts her, that would be new. People have seen her for just about 23 years and most don’t like what they see. This is what will keep her from winning the White House. To put it plainly most people just flat out don’t like her.

If you think this will suddenly change what could you possibly be basing this on?[/quote]

I have to agree with Magick, because the only two people turning out the vote on the Republican side are Trump and Carson.

You cannot win the game if you do not field a team.
[/quote]

Slow down Max, we have 16 republican candidates currently punching away to get to or to maintain top status. And how many people watched the two republican debates? Something like 24 million each time. There is a GIGANTIC interest in defeating Hillary Clinton. The number of candidates who threw their respective hats in the ring, the number of voters following the debates it all adds up to big trouble for Hillary and company (and I also think Joe Biden gets his ass kicked should he enter the ring–he is after all Obama’s right hand man).

No, no Hillary will not be winning the Presidency unless there is some sort of royal screw up on the GOP side. And I don’t mean that we take longer than a few weeks to name a Speaker that is a tempest in a teapot. Nor do I mean the Tea Partiers are not playing nice with the rhinos inner party workings will not stand in the way of a republican win.

Honestly, none of that means a hill of spit to the average voter. But they do feel that over the past 7 years Obama has let them down in so very many ways. If anyone really, really thinks they are going to elect his Secretary of State or Vice President as his replacement even if Hillary never lied about her emails and Joe Biden never had even one gaffe they are simply not looking at reality as they should.

This will be a republican year short of a major miracle for the democrats that is not likely to come.

1039

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

You cannot win the game if you do not field a team.
[/quote]

And by the way most any “team” will beat Hillary. The GOP has multiple combinations of people who will win.

Rubio/Kasich is the best but there are many others as well.

1040

Zeb:

Rubio has GOT to show some upward movement…and right now he is not. He remains a distant single-digit 3rd in all credible polls.

Now…there are some thoughts out there that:

  1. Trump and Carson can stumble…get out of the race…and Rubio is the presumptive nominee.

  2. Someone can make him a VP choice. (The “someone” is who?)

  3. We see the most divisive and contentious convention in the History of Conventions.

Another “head-scratcher” is Fiorina. She has fallen an amazing 15% in most Polls. With all the momentum after the first debate, she appeared to pull a “Scott Walker” and disappear.

That really is unfortunate.

Then there is Jeb…I don’t even know what to say. To me, this has been the biggest surprise of the Political Season. He is still single digits…and falling.

Mufasa

1041

[quote]ZEB wrote:

This will be a republican year short of a major miracle for the democrats that is not likely to come.
[/quote]

Democrat miracle = Trump