Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[visionary]

Donald Trump is notgood at self promotion. He's a clown. Nobody likes him or believes his bull**** except the most ignorant and misinformed part of our electorate (which is apparently large and centralized enough within the Republican party to create a plurality in a crowded GoP field). And even then I'm not sure that a lot of those supporters only do so because they think he's funny.

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Trump at this point.  

A Trump presidency (or even Trump/Cruz) is looking ever more possible.

I don't really envy anyone in a one on one match-up with him.  

He just has so many ways to manipulate the audience and come out looking like the winner even when it defies all logic.

[Predicto]

I voted for Bush Senior, twice.   I almost voted for Bob Dole.  

 

But that was before Newt Gingrich and Fox News changed the GOP from the party of "cold but level-headed responsibility" into the party of "win at all costs by wallowing in seething anger and resentment and intellectual dishonesty."   

 

What we see now on that GOP debate stage is the inevitable result of the GOP's own incredibly successful strategy to dumb-down and anger-up the electorate.

[Going Commando]

What we see now on that GOP debate stage is the inevitable result of the GOP's own incredibly successful strategy to dumb-down and anger-up the electorate.

Yes. This is the chickens coming home to roost for the GoP for letting the Rush Limbaughs be their intelligentsia and Fox News be there party voice, in charge of informing their base. And also for a million other harmful short term decisions, not the least of which was courting (and continuing to do so) the angry, white, and ignorant vote to the exclusion of adding any one new to their tent. The GoP wants to expand their tent, probably more than any other long term objective. And they can't do it because they painted themselves into this corner through their electoral strategy since Nixon.

I'm interested to see if Republicans will go ahead and just shatter the old party and force a complete redefinition of it by nominating Trump.

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Trump at this point.  

A Trump presidency (or even Trump/Cruz) is looking ever more possible.

I don't really envy anyone in a one on one match-up with him.  

He just has so many ways to manipulate the audience and come out looking like the winner even when it defies all logic.

I think it would be a mistake to think that Trump's supporters make up anywhere close to a majority of the electorate, or that he has the charisma of Ronald Reagan. I'd like to see numbers for Reagan's unfavorables and compare them to Trump's.

[Kilmer17]

Yes. This is the chickens coming home to roost for the GoP for letting the Rush Limbaughs be their intelligentsia and Fox News be there party voice, in charge of informing their base. And also for a million other harmful short term decisions, not the least of which was courting (and continuing to do so) the angry, white, and ignorant vote to the exclusion of adding any one new to their tent. The GoP wants to expand their tent, probably more than any other long term objective. And they can't do it because they painted themselves into this corner through their electoral strategy since Nixon.

I'm interested to see if Republicans will go ahead and just shatter the old party and force a complete redefinition of it by nominating Trump.

I think it would be a mistake to think that Trump's supporters make up anywhere close to a majority of the electorate, or that he has the charisma of Ronald Reagan. I'd like to see numbers for Reagan's unfavorables and compare them to Trump's.

Again pointing out that polling disagrees with what you (and I) hope is happening.

[Predicto]

Again pointing out that polling disagrees with what you (and I) hope is happening.

 

 

You are correct.  Taking the low road and appealing to fear, anger, resentment and ignorance is working.  

 

So why not just double down on it again, forever?   

[visionary]

I'm interested to see if Republicans will go ahead and just shatter the old party and force a complete redefinition of it by nominating Trump.

I think it would be a mistake to think that Trump's supporters make up anywhere close to a majority of the electorate, or that he has the charisma of Ronald Reagan. I'd like to see numbers for Reagan's unfavorables and compare them to Trump's.

I'm not sure past metrics mean much when it comes to Trump. I'd love to see him get destroyed in the general election, but so far evidence has been that he only gets stronger and more popular, more acceptable, as he goes on.  On the other hand no candidate has really put up a huge fight against him so far, though they have all tried to poke at him now and again.  So it's possible that he could be knocked off balance if he faced a consistent attack that he was forced to repeatedly answer. Usually when he does answer attacks though, he's able to use them to his advantage.  We'll have to see.

[visionary]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/uk-mps-debate-banning-trump-160115182525414.html

UK MPs to debate banning Trump

 

British MPs are set to debate whether US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump should be banned from entering the UK, after a petition calling for him to be barred gathered more than 500,000 signatures.

 

The politicians will discuss the motion on Monday in the House of Commons and debate, for three hours, whether Trump should be prevented from the UK on account of what the 573,149 signatories called his "hate speech".

 

Having received more than 100,000 signatures, the petition had to be considered for debate by parliament under British law, and requires a written government response.

 

"The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech," the petition read. "The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.

The UK parliament will also debate a far less popular petition, which argued against the ban on Trump, and only gathered 42,593 signatures.

 

After Trump made his anti-Muslim comments, the British Prime Minister David Cameron said that while they were unsavoury, he did not support a ban.

 

Jocelyn Howorth, an associate at the immigration law specialist  Westkin Associates, told Al Jazeera: "If it was someone else, I think it [the ban] could happen."

The solicitor added that she expects the issue to "fizzle out quickly" once the debate is over.

 

"Realistically, the UK Home Secretary Theresa May can't ban a US presidential candidate without massive repercussions. I don't think that will happen."

[Larry]

You are correct. Taking the low road and appealing to fear, anger, resentment and ignorance is working.

So why not just double down on it again, forever?

Stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't it get us out?

- Will Rogers.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Michael Bay's Benghazi movie premieres to 30,000 people at JerryWorld.

http://gawker.com/i-watched-michael-bays-benghazi-movie-at-cowboys-stadiu-1753238965

This must be part of that liberal Hollywood agenda I keep hearing about.

[Kilmer17]

You are correct. Taking the low road and appealing to fear, anger, resentment and ignorance is working.

So why not just double down on it again, forever?

Almost line for line what my uber right wing nut job friends say about Obama and Hillary

[Larry]

Almost line for line what my uber right wing nut job friends say about Obama and Hillary

. . . because they live in a fantasy world.

[Kilmer17]

. . . because they live in a fantasy world.

Yep. They say exactly that when people point out the left wing view of things.

. . . because they live in a fantasy world.

Yep. They say exactly that when people point out the left wing view of things.

[Predicto]

So, is your point that both arguments are equally valid because they come from differing sides of the political spectrum?  

 

I never took you for a relativist.

[Kilmer17]

i don't think so at all. Just pointing out more examples of the two Americas theme.

Those 45 percent that are voting for whomever the GOP candidate is regardless? They think the exact same way about the left as you guys think about those 45 percent and the candidates getting their support.

Want to fix America? First step is realizing that fact and not dismissing them as morons.

[TradeTheBeal!]

"I know you are, but what am I?"

GOP = Pee Wee Herman

[Kilmer17]

"I know you are, but what am I?"

GOP = Pee Wee Herman

Yep. That helps.

[TheGoodBits]

Want to fix America? First step is realizing that fact and not dismissing them as morons.

So how do you rehabilitate them?

Did you take a look at the GOP primary debate I posted from 99? It's COMPLETELY different now.

What has to change to get the GOP, and their voters, back to a place where they can actually put forth legitimate policy proposals, compromise with Democrats, and get stuff done? Because right now it's heading in the wrong direction, rapidly.

[Kilmer17]

The first step is acknowledging that they do offer proposals and that the Dems are just as opposed to compromise.

The system is broken. But most of you portray the image that you believe only one side is to blame.

Start by asking yourself why people hate the way the Dems enacted obmamacare. It's not because of the act itself.

Also fwiw. The right wing has a lot farther to go in this regard. But that doesn't mean the left should just say eff it Since they're worse were absolved

[Predicto]

Start by asking yourself why people hate the way the Dems enacted obmamacare. It's not because of the act itself.

 

 

 

Yes, you are right.   The Dems absolutely should not have negotiated with the GOP for a full year over Obamacare, and and should not have incorporated tons of GOP suggestions into the bill, and should not have based the entire bill on a GOP-created plan.   They should have realized from the start that the GOP leadership was not going to let any of their members vote for any Democratic bill on health care, and just jammed through the law they wanted while they had the majority to do so.

 

People hate the way the Dems enacted Obamacare because people have been lied to about the way the Dems enacted Obamacare.   The mythology has become reality.  

[Kilmer17]

Yes, you are right. The Dems absolutely should not have negotiated with the GOP for a full year over Obamacare, and and should not have incorporated tons of GOP suggestions into the bill, and should not have based the entire bill on a GOP-created plan. They should have realized from the start that the GOP leadership was not going to let any of their members vote for any Democratic bill on health care, and just jammed through the law they wanted while they had the majority to do so.

People hate the way the Dems enacted Obamacare because people have been lied to about the way the Dems enacted Obamacare. The mythology has become reality.

Yep. As long as people believe that, we maintain status quo.

If the Dems want to do something and the GOP doesn't, and the Dems do it anyway, who's to blame for lack of compromise?

[Larry]

The first step is acknowledging that they do offer proposals and that the Dems are just as opposed to compromise.

And speaking of living in a fantasy world, . . .

Your remember the following history?  Granted, I'm going from memory, but I suspect that you remember it, too(Although, judging from your posts, last year or so, I'm not as sure as I once was.) 

 

The federal government is about to shut down.

Republicans announce that they will not permit the government to continue functioning, unless the federal deficit is reduced by a certain amount.

Within hours, Barack Obama agrees, and makes a proposal which accomplished the Republican's stated demand, and does so 90% via spending cuts, and 10% via tax increases.

Boehner agrees to this compromise.

The Republicans then announce that this was too easy. They take Boehner aside, and announce that they will remove him from the Speakership if he agrees to anything Obama proposes.

A few days later, Boehner announces his new, higher demands.

Now tell me, which Party is it that's unwilling to compromise?

If the Dems want to do something and the GOP doesn't, and the Dems do it anyway, who's to blame for lack of compromise?

The one who's position is "we will not compromise, no matter what we're offered"?

I saw at least Dem compromises, during that year long fight.

I remember the Republicans claiming that the law paid for abortions. (It didn't.) The Dems added language specifically stating that laws which already existed, would still exist.

 

I remember the Republicans announcing that it would give subsidized health insurance to illegals.  (It didn't.)  When asked to back up this claim, the Republicans pointed out that the law didn;t mandate that the exchanges use E-Verify.  The Dems added that language to the bill. 

 

Please, point out to me what the Republicans compromised on. 

[Larry]

Start by asking yourself why people hate the way the Dems enacted obmamacare. It's not because of the act itself.

I agree with you.

They object to it because it has Obama's name on it.

Near as I can tell, there are two major differences between Obamacare, and W's Prescription drug plan.

1) The Democrat plan actually pays for itself. (At least on paper. For the first 10 years.) The Republican plan is paid for entirely with deficit spending.

2) In one case, a Democrat gets credit for handing out "free" goodies. And the Republicans get credit for the other one.

Now, which of these two differences, do you figure, explains why the Republican Party has unanimously spent the last five years unanimously trying every political maneuver that they can, to prevent one from working, (and then loudly yelling that the problems are the other guy's fault), and the other was overwhelmingly supported by those same Republicans (and has never been even suggested for repeal)?

Me, I think it's because their sole motivation was, and is, is trying to prevent Obama from accomplishing anything whatsoever.

But if you'd rather assert that their objection is that Obamacare isn't entirely funded by deficit spending, please feel free.

[chipwhich]

Larry, the fact that you believe the only folks who did anything wrong in the whole process is why the system is broken and wont be fixed.

But you will get what you ask for.  You are the next apprentice.

[Larry]

Larry, the fact that you believe the only folks who did anything wrong in the whole process is why the system is broken and wont be fixed.

I pointed out three specific examples of Democrat compromises, and asked for examples of Republican ones. 

 

And what I get is hand waving.  "Larry, the fact that you're pointing out actual events and asking for actual events in response proves that everything's your fault.  Because I say so." 

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-guns-217797

Debate poised to open new front in Clinton-Sanders gun control clash

 

Democrats on both sides of the Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders divide are bracing for the next front in the two presidential candidates' raging gun control clash — Charleston, South Carolina, where nine African-American church members were shot and killed in June.

 

The venue for Sunday's debate is just one block from Emanuel A.M.E. Church, where the tragedy took place, heightening emotions surrounding gun policy.

 

But at issue — as the race tightens and Clinton paints Sanders as out of step with Democrats and President Barack Obama on gun control — is a new point of contention that stands to put Sanders on the defensive: the Vermont senator’s 1993 vote on a measure that’s been known as the “Charleston Loophole” ever since the summer shootings.

 

It’s expected to become a new tack in Clinton’s argument — which has become increasingly aggressive as her lead evaporates in New Hampshire and Iowa — intended to erode Sanders’ popularity with Democratic primary voters. And it’s a pitch that would come timed to shore up Clinton’s support with South Carolina Democrats, among whom Clinton continues to lead Sanders by wide margins in polling.