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

[JMS]

This is probably your best post.  Both parties are a sham, but folks in this thread try and defend their party.  It's all a joke,  The 1% are winning and continue to win.

Actually this is just one of my best posts.. They are all pretty awesome.. .

I do think the Party sold out to Hillary in this election and I think that's pretty unforgivable given how strong Bernie's support has become. It hurts the party to be seen stifling such a dynamic movement in favor of a pre chosen candidate.

I also think their is a strong protest vote in both parties, it seems the Republicans protest vote though is a little further along than the Democrats. Either way between Bernie and Donald, it appears a huge number of traditional party voters are looking for real and significant change in this election cycle.

[Larry]

I think If Cruz dropped out, then Trump could be in trouble.. But Cruz would never drop out for the good of the party. And I also think you are right that the GOP leadership finds Trump less objectionable than Cruz.

That poll visionary posted, several days ago, looked at what happens, when people drop out. If I can paraphrase what I remember:

If it's Trump-Cruz, Trump gets slaughtered.

If it's Trump-Rubio, Trump gets slaughtered.

But, as long as it's Trump-Cruz-Rubio, then Trump "wins" a three-way tie, and the other two get enough delegates to stay in.

[Koolblue13]

I'm starting to think Trump wins. I don't think Sanders supports vote Hillary and I wouldn't either. Screw the Dems for not supporting the popular Sanders and the people he represents.

[Fergasun]

So right now Trump-Rubio and Trump-Cruz would both see Trump getting slaughtered, yet Trump-Hillary would lean Trump?

That makes no sense. At some point, the rest of the electorate is going to see what the GOP doesnt at the moment.

Unless Trump goes moderate in the general. I have no idea how he does that when his #1 issue is to build a wall.

[skinsmarydu]

Unless Trump goes moderate in the general. I have no idea how he does that when his #1 issue is to build a wall.

I would love to know that as well. We have an enormous illegal population here in ATL, and he got rousing applause for a wall at his rally here the other day.

I don't know wtf is going on anymore.

[Kilmer17]

Warren is liked by progressive Democrats. She is vilified on the right.

I don't like Warrens positions. I like her.

I don't think she's lying when she speaks

[s0crates]

Bernie's new SC radio spot featuring Sike Lee:

https://m.soundcloud.com/bernie_sanders/wake-up

Pretty good.

[GoSkins0721]

“The guards are being very gentle with him,” Trump said. “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you that.”

 

The Trump comments remind of the incredibly stupid comments Anne Coulter spews. I can see Trump know, feet up on the desk in the Oval Office...Trump, the Male Ann Coulter

 

[RedskinsFan44]

I don't know how anybody could call Hillary the lesser of two evils. Among the worst mistakes made since 911. Hillary either supported them, thought them up.. or her husband had already passed them into law earlier. I don't know if evil is even the right word.

She's more like a willing participant to any obscene or dysfunctional act she things helps her politically.. Evil would suggest she has a political compass. She doesn't.

OK, forget that Trump likes to debates by calling his opponents losers, and generally has the demeanor of a middle school bully. Defend his rhetoric of lamenting our leaving a (fictitious) age where we summarily executed Muslim POWS with bullets dipped in pig's blood, and how that was an effective foreign policy. Explain how that kind of rhetoric, coupled with promises of torture far worse than waterboarding is less likely to get us back in a ground war in the Middle East, and if one happens how that will help us build another coallition. Here is something to think about, if the American people

had not been overwhelmingly hot for war after 9/11, would we have gotten into one? What kind of rhetoric gins up that sentiment?

Add, see above, lol.

[PeterMP]

This article is an interesting analysis of why boomer liberals and millennial liberals are so divided.

The author notes that the moderate boomer liberals are outliers. The liberals that came before them were much further to the left, and the liberals that are coming after them are much further to the left.

Why? Basically because the liberals that came before the boomers set them up to be so successful that they shifted to the center, but in so doing they set the millennials back so far that they are trying to shift back to the left.

The author explains it better than I do:

https://newrepublic.com/article/130220/baby-boomers-dont-get-bernie-sanders

I think the author is really onto something here, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

 

I'm not a baby boomer, and I'm not a big fan of the baby boomers, but this is ignorant to the point of being stupid.

 

To disconnect the growth of the economy post-WWII and the destruction of the industrial centers of most of the other developed countries in the world and credit it to an economic philosophy is nonsensical.

 

I think the baby boomers (and realistically the greatest generations) idea of liberalism is different is because the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s did happen, and they lived through it.  Stocks were essentially flat, stagflation did happen, per an earning unit real buying power for the middle and lower class did go down (yes, family incomes did go up, but it happened largely because families went to 2 income families).

 

The Reagan revolution happened for a reason, and it wasn't because everything was peachy keen and the baby boomers and the greatest generation decided to ruin it for everybody else. 

 

Now, this isn't to say that everything that Reagan did was good, that it made sense to double down on many of his policies (e.g. the GWB tax cut), or that new problems haven't arisen that are going to require new solutions (e.g. prior to computers the idea of high speed trading wasn't relevant and before Citizens United we didn't need a solution for it).

 

But I think the Boomers and the Greatest Generation learned that the solution to most problems isn't really people with money across the board are trying to keep everybody else down and the solution is to simply tax more to give other people more stuff.

[skinsmarydu]

Computers & robotics have killed jobs.

More computers & more robotics will only kill more jobs.

 

Long term?  Humans are gone.  Think about this in 50 years or so.  We can't work or earn money, so we either go "Thunderdome" and barter, or we cease to exist. 

To be more efficient, we have destroyed our species.  Wow.

[JMS]

Unless Trump goes moderate in the general. I have no idea how he does that when his #1 issue is to build a wall.

So here is the deal... Hillary has run for senator twice and now president twice and their is a clear trend. In no election has Hillary ever picked up voters. She starts with a big money and name recognition advantage. Those two things give her a huge early lead, which she looses over time. She wins or looses the election based upon how fast she looses voters.

So today if Hillary were up by say 5% or even 10%; it wouldn't be enough in the General to actually get her to election day. Hillary is running on her record of accomplishment, and the problem is she actually hasn't accomplished anything. Now she's claiming credit for the Iran Nuclear deal and killing Bin Laudin. Neither of which are her accomplishments. As a senator and a secretary of state, she is entirely unremarkable.

The only thing she excels at is fundraising with special interests.

[JMS]

From what I have read from you and JMS I suspect both of you guys animosity for Hillary is based on your support of Sanders.  And that is pretty natural in a hotly contested election where your opponent has structural advantages.  But she is still way closer to Sanders than any of the guys competing for the Republican nomination.

My animosity for Hillary is because she has yet to give us any compelling reason we should vote for her. In the absence of that she's borrowed issues from Bernie. It offends me when she makes inevitability arguments and it offends me when the Democratic party who's chairman works for the Clinton Foundation act unfairly to ensure hillary get's the nomination.

As for Hillary being Closer to Bernie.. I disagree. I think Hillary is closer to Rubio than she is to Bernie. I think borrowing the idea of lowering tuition at public universities and paying lip service to universal coverage don't define Hillary. Being a Hawk on defense, being pro Patriot Act, being pro massive Defense budgets, pro Gitmo, and pro Massive one sided trade deals. Hillary is Rubio only pro choice. A more likable Ted Cruz is all. They all have the same exact Policy / plan for Syria. Same foreign policy.. too. it's astounding.

Bernie's ideas would never pass anyways.  If elected he would be one and done not only because of his inability to accomplish anything but he would be 79 years old running for a second term.

Bernie is six years older than Hillary

four years older than Trump.

[skinsmarydu]

Bernie is six years older than Hillary

four years older than Trump.

And wiser than either. That's why I'm holding  Bernin' on.

[JMS]

I would love to know that as well. We have an enormous illegal population here in ATL, and he got rousing applause for a wall at his rally here the other day.

I don't know wtf is going on anymore.

What's really funny is Mexico's reaction to that. Mexico is very upset that we are building a wall and that they are going to have to pay for it. It's kind of funny.

Bottom line though.. Deporting 10-12 million illegals isn't a radical move. Every President before President Obama deported illegals on that scale. Certainly Bill Clinton and George W. I don't think Building a wall is all that extrodianay either. Americans don't trust the government to secure the boarder, so more than anything else the wall is just a symbol to show the government is taking boarder security seriously.

Seriously though walls haven't been a good defense since what middle ages? The solution to end the immigration crisis is simple.. hold employers responsible like we used to do in the 60's-80's.

[skinsmarydu]

Mexico ain't payin' for ****. If they could've kept their people IN, they would've done so long ago. I work with these folks. I know.

We, as humans who NEED to survive, go where the opportunity is better. Mars, here I come...I assume the Donald will get me there?

PEOPLE. Don't get in line. Follow what you truly believe. ~nevermind, I forget who I'm talking to~

[visionary]

Mexico isn't going to have to pay for anything no matter how many times Trump says it. Lol, employers like Trump?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Bottom line though.. Deporting 10-12 million illegals isn't a radical move. Every President before President Obama deported illegals on that scale. Certainly Bill Clinton and George W. I don't think Building a wall is all that extrodianay either. Americans don't trust the government to secure the boarder, so more than anything else the wall is just a symbol to show the government is taking boarder security seriously.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Deportations have never been higher than they are today, and NEVER in the 10-12 million range.

Seriously, you just made up all of your own facts and in the age of Google that's just plain lazy.

[@DCGoldPants]

Cruz is trying to steal the build a wall bit from Trump now. Still, Mexico ain't paying for it. America ain't paying for it. It's not happening. We're also not going to pay to round up 12 million illegals either no matter how classy and luxurious our President is. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Cruz is trying to steal the build a wall bit from Trump now. Still, Mexico ain't paying for it. America ain't paying for it. It's not happening. We're also not going to pay to round up 12 million illegals either no matter how classy and luxurious our President is. 

Forcing Mexico to pay for something we build will be funny to watch.

I guess I'm going to build an addition onto my house and send the bill to my neighbor.

[JMS]

OK, forget that Trump likes to debates by calling his opponents losers, and generally has the demeanor of a middle school bully. Defend his rhetoric of lamenting our leaving a (fictitious) age where we summarily executed Muslim POWS with bullets dipped in pig's blood, and how that was an effective foreign policy.

I'm not familiar with that quote. Please provide a link. I'm more offended by the actual wars Cruz, Rubio and Clinton are already planning than any utterance that has come from Trump. Frankly Ronald Reagan used to say crazy things too. Like joking about letting the bombs fly.. Or assuring the Soviet Union that in the event of an attack by UFO's they could count on us.. Or when asked if he would run out a military option for a crisis response saying he wouldn't rule out using the bomb.

Trump is more likely to insult your mother I admit that, but other than Bernie, he's also significantly less likely to send our soldiers into war. I find the latter much more offensive than his spoken words.

Explain how that kind of rhetoric, coupled with promises of torture far worse than waterboarding is less likely to get us back in a ground war in the Middle East, and if one happens how that will help us build another coallition.

Words don't start wars Fan44, invasions do. And most of the candidates in this Presidential race favor war as an instrument of foreign policy. Be worried about them purposely and politely getting starting another US war in the ME. Not Trump.

As for Torture I obviously disagree very very strongly with Trump on that. It's part of the reason I support Bernie over Trump.. that and many other issues. Why is Trumps torture stance doesn't rule him out for me. Because Hillary and every other GOP candidate has the same policy Trump does on that. Bernie is the only sane one on that topic.

Here is something to think about, if the American people

had not been overwhelmingly hot for war after 9/11, would we have gotten into one? What kind of rhetoric gins up that sentiment?

Add, see above, lol.

The American people were overwhelmingly in favor of taking the fight to the folks responsible for 911, as was I.. As was Bernie. George W. flat out lied to the American people about Iraq's involvement in 911 and that is why the American people supported that war prior to the invasion. Prior to invasion 70% of the American public believed Saddam was personally involved with 911. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved with the attack on the world trade centers. Given 40% of the American people couldn't tell you the significance of Pearl Harbor to WWII, the only way 70% believe that is if the Administration makes that case.

As for Trump's rhetoric moving us to war. Trump and Bernie are the only candidates who will flat out tell you the war in Iraq was a mistake. When you talk war, Trump get's very reasonable very fast. Not so for Cruz and Rubio who's foreign policy are the same neocons which advocated our invasion of Iraq in the first place.. Or Hillary who has never met a military action she wasn't in favor of.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I just really don't understand the wall business.

 

Is it just plain racism? Like, not in the "get these Mexicans out of here" racism, but in the "all these brown people who speak Spanish are Mexicans" racism? Do people not realize how many Central and South Americans are here illegally? Do people not realize that the vast majority of illegal immigrants enter LEGALLY and simply over stay their visas? The number of people who swam here or crossed a desert are miniscule...

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok, JMS has officially gone off the deep end.

Come on man, stop just rectal pulling your facts.

 

Trump has already talked about military action in Iran, and has repeatedly talked about bombing the **** out of ISIS (as if we weren't doing that already).

http://www.infowars.com/donald-trump-i-may-take-military-action-against-iran-video/

 

You need to stop making **** up to validate your Trump love.

I know Trump is allergic to facts, reason and common sense, but that doesn't mean you have to follow suit.

I just really don't understand the wall business.

 

Is it just plain racism? Like, not in the "get these Mexicans out of here" racism, but in the "all these brown people who speak Spanish are Mexicans" racism? Do people not realize how many Central and South Americans are here illegally? Do people not realize that the vast majority of illegal immigrants enter LEGALLY and simply over stay their visas? The number of people who swam here or crossed a desert are miniscule...

It's not racism becasue all of the illegal Mexicans are rapists, murderers, and theives.

Donald said so.

[@DCGoldPants]

Forcing Mexico to pay for something we build will be funny to watch.

I guess I'm going to build an addition onto my house and send the bill to my neighbor.

 

It's like the Political Talk Radio Mantra.....EVERYTHING IS AWFUL......EVERYBODY IS AWFUL.....except you, my listeners.....PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES......except you, my listeners who are collecting welfare. I mean the other people in Chicago who don't deserve it.......REVOLUTION AGAINST THE LIBERAL DO-NOTHINGS!!!....seriously, I know you don't work because you're morbidly obese. I really don't mean you. You're a patriot. A hero."

[JMS]

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Deportations have never been higher than they are today, and NEVER in the 10-12 million range.

.....

Seriously, you just made up all of your own facts and in the age of Google that's just plain lazy.

Your NYTimes numbers only count one kind of deportation. Deportations which occur by catching folks at the boarder. They paint a false picture for total immigration enforcement.    

 

Here are some facts about what is actually going on at our boarders and the numbers that the Obama Administration put forward(which you cite) in defense of its lax enforcement policy brought before the courts.

http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations

*The number of deportations resulting from interior enforcement by ICE declined by 19 percent from 2011 to 2012, and is on track to decline another 22 percent in 2013.

* 2012, the year the Obama administration claimed to break enforcement records, more than one-half of removals attributed to ICE were the result of Border Patrol arrests that would never have been counted as a removal in prior years. In 2008, under the Bush administration, only one-third of removals were from Border Patrol arrests.

* deportations in 2011, the latest year for which complete numbers are available, numbered 715,495 – the lowest level since 1973. The highest number of deportations on record was in 2000, under the Clinton administration, when 1,864,343 aliens were deported.

*When claiming record levels of enforcement, the Obama administration appears to count only removals, which are just one form of deportation, and only a partial measure of enforcement. Beginning in 2011, a shift of some of the routine Border Patrol case load to ICE enabled the administration to count an artificially high number of removals.

Here is a more comprehensive chart on immigration rather than boarder enforcement.

 

 

LA Times

2014

High deportation figures are misleading

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

...

But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

...