The Next President of the United States: III

[quote]pushharder wrote:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/12/08/how_donald_trump_plays_the_media

Do you agree?[/quote]

Though I don’t like Trump, I love what he is doing. He has the media pissed off because their bullshit isn’t working no matter how hard they try. He has the Democrats pissed off because he is the anti-PC. He has Republicans pissed off because they thought he would be gone by now and he is exposing the GOP for who they really are.

Think about this. He makes a comment that we should not allow anymore Muslims into the country. Everyone loses their minds (for the cameras, because really they are licking their lips thinking they have finally got something to disqualify him). The last three days both the Democrats and the GOP have been condemning him, even calling him a Nazi. The media goes full on blitzkrieg. Then you ask the American people and 66% of Republicans and 37% of all voters agree with what he said.
So what do you do as a candidate? Do you blast Trump knowing that what he said is what most of your voters want, therefore losing votes? Or do you agree with him and hope to pick up the scraps by tweaking his message just a little? Either way he dominates the discussion. He speaks and everyone else reacts. If that paradigm continues, how does anyone else emerge as better option to the average voter?

All this being said, the only candidate that has seemed to figure all of this out is Ted Cruz. Cruz picks up the Trump vote if Trump gets out. But then again, that is a pretty big if.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]cire13 wrote:
If Trump wins the nomination, you can say goodbye to the Republican party. Most American’s will look upon his nomination as a joke. The International community will do so as well. The Republican Party will spend years trying to regain its reputation. [/quote]

You’re a foreigner, aren’t you?[/quote]

He may be, but he’s dead right about this.

Donald Trump’s most recent foray into the political world, prior to this election cycle, consisted of a public push for birtherism. Birtherism was a conspiracy theory, no less clownish than any other. This is the GOP front-runner – a conspiracy theorist who, in the course of peddling his conspiracy theory, acted every bit the stupid, lying buffoon, claiming to believe (and this is just one example of many) that the newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth in Hawaii had been fraudulently planted. Claiming, too, that the investigators he allegedly sent to Honolulu “cannot believe what they’re finding.” (No word, as of yet, on the object of their disbelief, though he still says he doesn’t know whether Obama was born in the US.)

There is, of course, so much more: his inability to think or speak clearly about anything is so severe that he has a remarkably difficult time conveying lucid thoughts at even a middle-school level of communication (just recently, he found himself repeatedly unable to say whether or not he is in favor of registering Muslims via a national database); he obviously makes all his bullshit up on the fly and is utterly disinterested in anything remotely resembling policy (note that ZEB, as GOP-biased as any person of whom we can possibly conceive, has repeatedly called him a policy lightweight); he is the least masculine presidential candidate in American history, staying up all night in order to exclamation-point his way through one-sided Twitter catfights with Megyn Kelly.

The list goes on and on. But all I really need is that second paragraph above. (Somebody go ahead and try to refute a word of it.) Again: a conspiracy theorist is the Republican frontrunner. The stupid party is showing us that it is literally that.

Donald Trump is an idiot, and his supporters are – by definition – idiots. Complete, utter idiots. Every one of them. They are supporting a candidate who is unelectable – and unfit for the office – not as a matter of policy disagreement, not because he’s flip-flopped or lied (as every politician has since the dawn of cooperative civilization), but at the most fundamental possible level. He is not remotely close to winning the White House, and he never will be. But he has done two things: he’s damaged the Republican party, and he’s given those of us who are academically interested in such matters a general answer to the question “What percentage of GOP voters are truly, irredeemably stupid.”[/quote]

Really, really well-said. And as someone who won’t vote for Hillary (probably*) the truth is she would do far less damage to American honor than Trump would.

*Caveat: I’d never vote for Hillary on the basis of thinking she is someone I’d want as president in any era. But I’ve moved out of the camp of not voting for either a Trump or Hillary if those are my choices, and into the camp of considering a vote for divided government if someone like Trump becomes the GOP candidate. The damage done by a Trump administration with the help of a GOP-controlled Congress is a far worse outcome than a Hillary administration fighting with a GOP Congress for four years and only passing incremental bills. A vote for divided government is often a vote well cast when your only options are two different type of manure, as we seem to have today.[/quote]

I doubt Trump would get much done even with a Republican Congress.

Republicans keep shouting about sealing the border, so if Trump gets elected and asks for the Republican Congress to write up a border bill, do you really think they would ? Hell no, because Republican donors love cheap labor.

What Trump is doing is exposing them for the frauds they are, and the establishment is protecting the old guard.

Let’s be clear about something-

The fact that Trump apparently still maintains a good bit of popular support, in spite of speaking in support of some things that are CLEARLY antithetical to the spirit of what the U.S. stands for, not to mention violates the 1st Amendment if enacted, should be extremely worrying to y’all.

This being said, I still support Trump for 2016.

[quote]magick wrote:
Let’s be clear about something-

The fact that Trump apparently still maintains a good bit of popular support, in spite of speaking in support of some things that are CLEARLY antithetical to the spirit of what the U.S. stands for, not to mention violates the 1st Amendment if enacted, should be extremely worrying to y’all.

This being said, I still support Trump for 2016.[/quote]

Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

Was there similar outrage during this ^ event ? When a DEMOCRATIC President did the same shit ? No. No clutching of pearls, not a single soul falling onto a fainting couch.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Do you include the latest Muslim comment in your above thought?

Does temporarily barring Muslim foreigners from visiting or immigrating violate the 1st Amendment? If so, tell me how.[/quote]

Apologies, I thought he mentioned locking up muslims, what with the comparisons to the Japanese internment camps he made and such.

Apparently he is not.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

Was there similar outrage during this ^ event ? When a DEMOCRATIC President did the same shit ? No. No clutching of pearls, not a single soul falling onto a fainting couch.
[/quote]

Whoever supported Carter with this and opposes Trump seem to be hypocrites.

I don’t care. I oppose both.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Do you include the latest Muslim comment in your above thought?

Does temporarily barring Muslim foreigners from visiting or immigrating violate the 1st Amendment? If so, tell me how.[/quote]

Apologies, I thought he mentioned locking up muslims, what with the comparisons to the Japanese internment camps he made and such.

Apparently he is not.
[/quote]

That was George Stephanopolous who brought it up in an interview with Trump, who ignored the question. Then the media jumped on it as, “Trump wants to intern Muslims” when he said no such thing.

For the first time in recent history, the media has failed at controlling the narrative with a candidate.

Cruz has moved to second place behind Trump, and ahead of Carson.

Mufasa

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Does temporarily barring Muslim foreigners from visiting or immigrating violate the 1st Amendment? If so, tell me how.[/quote]

How does building a religious test into state policy violate the First Amendment? You know the answer to that one.

People have had a grand time observing that potential visitors/immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. Unfortunately, the clause according to which the state may not dole its favor or disfavor among religions is object-independent: it restrains a characteristic intrinsic to certain kinds of government behavior.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]cire13 wrote:
If Trump wins the nomination, you can say goodbye to the Republican party. Most American’s will look upon his nomination as a joke. The International community will do so as well. The Republican Party will spend years trying to regain its reputation. [/quote]

You’re a foreigner, aren’t you?[/quote]

He may be, but he’s dead right about this.

Donald Trump’s most recent foray into the political world, prior to this election cycle, consisted of a public push for birtherism. Birtherism was a conspiracy theory, no less clownish than any other. This is the GOP front-runner – a conspiracy theorist who, in the course of peddling his conspiracy theory, acted every bit the stupid, lying buffoon, claiming to believe (and this is just one example of many) that the newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth in Hawaii had been fraudulently planted. Claiming, too, that the investigators he allegedly sent to Honolulu “cannot believe what they’re finding.” (No word, as of yet, on the object of their disbelief, though he still says he doesn’t know whether Obama was born in the US.)

There is, of course, so much more: his inability to think or speak clearly about anything is so severe that he has a remarkably difficult time conveying lucid thoughts at even a middle-school level of communication (just recently, he found himself repeatedly unable to say whether or not he is in favor of registering Muslims via a national database); he obviously makes all his bullshit up on the fly and is utterly disinterested in anything remotely resembling policy (note that ZEB, as GOP-biased as any person of whom we can possibly conceive, has repeatedly called him a policy lightweight); he is the least masculine presidential candidate in American history, staying up all night in order to exclamation-point his way through one-sided Twitter catfights with Megyn Kelly.

The list goes on and on. But all I really need is that second paragraph above. (Somebody go ahead and try to refute a word of it.) Again: a conspiracy theorist is the Republican frontrunner. The stupid party is showing us that it is literally that.

Donald Trump is an idiot, and his supporters are – by definition – idiots. Complete, utter idiots. Every one of them. They are supporting a candidate who is unelectable – and unfit for the office – not as a matter of policy disagreement, not because he’s flip-flopped or lied (as every politician has since the dawn of cooperative civilization), but at the most fundamental possible level. He is not remotely close to winning the White House, and he never will be. But he has done two things: he’s damaged the Republican party, and he’s given those of us who are academically interested in such matters a general answer to the question “What percentage of GOP voters are truly, irredeemably stupid.”[/quote]

Your disparaging remarks – even if they are true – ignore the dynamics of what is going on here (read the Rush Limbaugh link – I don’t give a shit if you despise Rush or not, read the link).[/quote]

The remarks are true. It is an objective fact – not an interpretation, not an opinion – that Trump is a conspiracy theorist. There is no argument about this. Again, a conspiracy theorist. The frontrunner. There is nothing at play here but complete and utter idiocy. Pitiable buffoonishness. Et cetera.

It is an objective fact that when you analyze his public remarks, you get a pile of ungrammatical, syntactically appalling horseshit on the page. And this is truly amazing in light of the fact that he talks at about a 3rd-grade level on the Flesch-Kincaid test: he manages to muddle and fuck up even the simple, childish words and sentences that apparently constitute his entire spoken vocabulary.

And, again, his histrionic, classically-feminine, utterly unpresidential (and undignified) penchant for exclamative early-morning Twitter catfighting is there for anyone to see. It is not something that maybe didn’t happen.

[quote]
In addition, as far as, “He may be, but he’s dead right about this,” that is speculation and the honest to God truth is you really don’t know and neither do I.[/quote]

Granted, in a sort of useless epistemological sense. But some prognostications are (much) better than others. Say the Packers were to choose to trade Aaron Rodgers for Mark Sanchez in the coming off-season. Say you were to criticize this decision. You’d be speculating, and the honest to god truth is you really wouldn’t know how it would turn out – it would be utterly possible, in a logical-metaphysical kind of way, for Sanchez to lead the Packers to the SB. But your criticism would still be smart, and its denial would be stupid.

[quote]
I well remember the overwhelmingly massive cascade of negative remarks about Reagan’s intellect and how stupid and dangerous he was way back in 1979 and 1980.[/quote]

As you say yourself, there isn’t really a comparison. Whatever you think of Reagan, he wasn’t remotely comparable to this assclown. Again – and this is just a single example among hundreds – Trump is a conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy theorist.

Well, I certainly know – and I do mean know – that my argument about Trump’s fitness for office (character, intellect, past conduct) is correct. Its individual elements are objectively factual to the last minor detail.

So the only assumption my prediction requires is one of general competence and good faith on behalf of the (majority of the) American people: that this bumbling idiot, this ridiculously buffoonish, confused conspiracy theorist – and, more importantly, the hordes of idiots pushing him to the top of the GOP heap – will continue to be met with the appropriate, rational levels of disdain and ridicule.

Which is a roundabout way of saying, again, that a conspiracy theorist is the GOP frontrunner, and this is intrinsically, by definition, bad for the GOP.

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
He has the Democrats pissed off because he is the anti-PC.[/quote]

No. He has the Democrats acting pissed off and aghast in public while privately wondering what they ever did to deserve such a generous gift from the electoral gods.

[quote]
Though I don’t like Trump, I love what he is doing.[/quote]

Then you’re the problem. There is a bizarre willingness among conservatives to accept or at least weirdly appreciate – and to obliquely, furtively defend – whatever ludicrous riff-raff or conspiracy theorist or bumbling idiot stumbles onto the political stage. This is looking more and more likely to help Clinton to the presidency, and there’s no reason to believe any of it will stop there.

You’re going to deserve the I-told-you-so’s.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
He has the Democrats pissed off because he is the anti-PC.[/quote]

No. He has the Democrats acting pissed off and aghast in public while privately wondering what they ever did to deserve such a generous gift from the electoral gods.

[quote]
Though I don’t like Trump, I love what he is doing.[/quote]

Then you’re the problem. There is a bizarre willingness among conservatives to accept or at least weirdly appreciate – and to obliquely, furtively defend – whatever ludicrous riff-raff or conspiracy theorist or bumbling idiot stumbles onto the political stage. This is looking more and more likely to help Clinton to the presidency, and there’s no reason to believe any of it will stop there.

You’re going to deserve the I-told-you-so’s.[/quote]

Completely agree with smh. Democrat media will be outraged by Trump, but Hillary is loving every second he sticks around. She wants to run against him because he is easily beatable in a general election. Republicans such as myself will not support him because he is exactly what smh has described, unfit for office and damaging to the GOP.

Limbaugh’s article said he’s playing the media for fools, to me it looks like he is playing the GOP voters

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Completely agree with smh. Democrat media will be outraged by Trump, but Hillary is loving every second he sticks around. She wants to run against him because he is easily beatable in a general election. Republicans such as myself will not support him because he is exactly what smh has described, unfit for office and damaging to the GOP.

Limbaugh’s article said he’s playing the media for fools, to me it looks like he is playing the GOP voters[/quote]

I think that if it were to come down to November 2016, many GOP voters would discover that they actually think like you do. They may not know it now, they may not admit to it later, but when they’re in the booth and the gravity of the decision before them – the decision to put the nuclear football within somebody’s reach – comes into focus, I bet a significant faction find themselves simply unable to pull the lever for Trump.

And it’s crazy that we’re even talking about this, because if Rubio or Bush were leading in the polls, we’d be talking about Clinton’s sliminess and the 3-term disadvantage instead. I remember the early summer, it was all about Clinton. I found myself musing on the depths of her corruption while I was sitting on airplanes and between sets at the gym. But since then, as Trump has grown and become more difficult to dismiss as a mere joke, he’s eaten up all the criticism. He’s earned a near-monopoly on negative attention. To think that it’ll be lost on people which party’s voters have put him here at center stage – this is quixotic. People talk about brand damage during the 2012 election – the incompetence on display during the primaries (e.g., everything about Herman Cain), Akin, etc. That was nothing – nothing – compared with Trump.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
Let’s be clear about something-

The fact that Trump apparently still maintains a good bit of popular support, in spite of speaking in support of some things that are CLEARLY antithetical to the spirit of what the U.S. stands for, not to mention violates the 1st Amendment if enacted, should be extremely worrying to y’all.

This being said, I still support Trump for 2016.[/quote]

Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

Was there similar outrage during this ^ event ? When a DEMOCRATIC President did the same shit ? No. No clutching of pearls, not a single soul falling onto a fainting couch.

[/quote]

Retorsion vis-a-vis Iran and its citizens after the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran cannot be compared to Trump’s imbecilic policy prescriptions. Setting aside the unconstitutionality in relation to US citizens who happen to be Muslims, what Trump is proposing would violate many principles of international law and innumerable treaties that the US is party to. It also plays straight into the al-Qaida and ISIL narrative. It will make the United States not more but less secure. Other than its naked illegality and strategic myopia, Trump’s plan is impossible to enforce. Religion is not quantifiable as nationality is.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

Was there similar outrage during this ^ event ? When a DEMOCRATIC President did the same shit ? No. No clutching of pearls, not a single soul falling onto a fainting couch.
[/quote]

Whoever supported Carter with this and opposes Trump seem to be hypocrites.

I don’t care. I oppose both.[/quote]

That simply isn’t the case. Retorsion based on nationality in response to a gross breach of international law is not comparable to what Trump is proposing.