Discussing Trump with some friends a point to ponder did come up. Trump has one very redeeming quality as POTUS even if you don't like his policies. He would be a POTUS that both parties would have no problem impeaching. That just might give Congress the backbone to actually be a check against Executive overreach and contain the role of the POTUS to it's Constitutional duties. If Hillary or Bernie win, no Democrat would ever vote to impeach, regardless of the charge, just like Obama. And if one of the other GOP candidates won, I suspect the GOP would do the same (although to a lesser extent since the GOP has never been as homogenous as the Democrat Party).
So either Trump brings about the fall of civilization with the big red reset button, or perhaps we get some level of the division of powers restored. And if the States hold and Article V convention, anything passed cannot be stopped by the Office of the President.
Discussing Trump with some friends a point to ponder did come up. Trump has one very redeeming quality as POTUS even if you don't like his policies. He would be a POTUS that both parties would have no problem impeaching. That just might give Congress the backbone to actually be a check against Executive overreach and contain the role of the POTUS to it's Constitutional duties. If Hillary or Bernie win, no Democrat would ever vote to impeach, regardless of the charge, just like Obama. And if one of the other GOP candidates won, I suspect the GOP would do the same (although to a lesser extent since the GOP has never been as homogenous as the Democrat Party).
So either Trump brings about the fall of civilization with the big red reset button, or perhaps we get some level of the division of powers restored. And if the States hold and Article V convention, anything passed cannot be stopped by the Office of the President.
The first non President of the United States?
Executive orders would be at risk of being quashed in due time of course. They would be effective until action is taken. I'm going to have to look up how that works exactly.
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: The first non President of the United States?
Executive orders would be at risk of being quashed in due time of course. They would be effective until action is taken. I'm going to have to look up how that works exactly.
Perhaps, and a Trump presidency would be far more likely to be a 1 term affair than a Hillary or Col. Sanders.
I think everyone feels that way about WND. (I don't do Breibart so I can't really comment but I've seen enough of MeM and Avengador's posting of WND stuff to know it would be a good place to go if I wanted to find out the latest about Batboy's social acclimation from being found in a cave.)
I find it funny that Trump, Twice, threatened to run but did not when the party nominated 2 conservatively weak and unpopular moderates for candidates. But this time he is in and staying in when there are 2 potential nominees who are closer aligned with conservative principles.
Could it be that back then there was no way for a republican win and this time there is no way for a democrat to win.....
In 1999 Trump explored the idea of running for president under the Reform Party.
On the issue of David Duke. I pointed out the comparison between Trumps positions and the reform party platform. Trump was a member of the Reform Party and explored running for President under their name. But chose to back out and leave the party in 1999 -
quote
After a presidential exploratory campaign with the Reform Party, he wrote an OpEd in the New York Times stating that he was leaving the Reform Party because of the involvement of "David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep."
I don't think anyone can determine Trump's real party loyalty since it seems hard for trump to determine his own party loyalty. Perhaps he's just looking for a party with supporter so taken for granted that a politically incorrect voice expressing their frustration and anger gets a wide welcome even if it only serves to verbally pummel politicians of both parties, the media and what ever boogie man we can imagine.....
He is a republican Barack Obama. Except that, he's never been elected, there's nothing historical about his candidacy and the party for whom he is running is fighting to reject his nomination.
Cruz opposing Trump? I get it - he's an opponents "for now". but the upper ranks of the GOP? Have they not figure out that many of the voters hear their negative changes charges against Trump and wonder whats the difference. Here is a candidate, not so dissimilar to themselves, getting enormous support from caucus and primary voters and all they can talk about is how much of a fraud, con man or fake he is.Is Trump the right guy for the job, eh who is. we just don't have many examples of "the right guy" getting the nomination and winning the election from either party....
I don't think Cruz is going to be able to run down to the senate floor to protest legislation by executing a 48 hour rant with legs crossed trying not to pee. On the other hand I'm afraid Trump will run out to the senate floor and piss on the podium.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 03-06-2016).]
In 1999 Trump explored the idea of running for president under the Reform Party.
On the issue of David Duke. I pointed out the comparison between Trumps positions and the reform party platform. Trump was a member of the Reform Party and explored running for President under their name. But chose to back out and leave the party in 1999 -
I don't think anyone can determine Trump's real party loyalty since it seems hard for trump to determine his own party loyalty. Perhaps he's just looking for a party with supporter so taken for granted that a politically incorrect voice expressing their frustration and anger gets a wide welcome even if it only serves to verbally pummel politicians of both parties, the media and what ever boogie man we can imagine.....
He is a republican Barack Obama. Except that, he's never been elected, there's nothing historical about his candidacy and the party for whom he is running is fighting to reject his nomination.
Cruz opposing Trump? I get it - he's an opponents "for now". but the upper ranks of the GOP? Have they not figure out that many of the voters hear their negative changes charges against Trump and wonder whats the difference. Here is a candidate, not so dissimilar to themselves, getting enormous support from caucus and primary voters and all they can talk about is how much of a fraud, con man or fake he is.Is Trump the right guy for the job, eh who is. we just don't have many examples of "the right guy" getting the nomination and winning the election from either party....
I don't think Cruz is going to be able to run down to the senate floor to protest legislation by executing a 48 hour rant with legs crossed trying not to pee. On the other hand I'm afraid Trump will run out to the senate floor and piss on the podium.
I can see where Trump is coming from, because I'm one of those people who places party loyalty down to the bottom. I considered myself a Libertarian and was registered as one in my young days. But I know they never win anything. I still vote for them on the ballot, because I believe in ballot access for 3rd parties and so I want to help them along with that process.
I do know that Political Parties exist to cut down information cost for selecting candidates. Since most people are not informed of the issues, how the political process works, or what function of powers the office really holds, but they can understand what team to root for.
It's like baseball or football. You don't have to understand the players, the rules or how each player and the coach is doing or even all the people you don't see on the field that is involved in having a baseball / football game. You just need to show up and root for your team.
I know it is a little more than that. But that is essentially what it is. But the primaries is where the hard core of party loyalty people come out, which is a small fraction of the electorate.
If you look at the total numbers of people voting, I mean total of all the candidates, it doesn't even reach 6 digits, sometimes its just a few thousand. It's a fraction of who votes in a general election.
Let's look at Maine for example: 8550 for Cruz, 6070 for Trump, 2270 for Kasich, 1492 for Rubio. That is 18K total of people who voted, in fact it probably was the highest turnout for a Republican primary/caucus in the history of Maine.
How many people in Maine votes for Romney in the general election? Almost 300,000. So the people who voted for Cruz is 2% of the people who would voted Republican in the general election in Maine.
That is why I wanted to get involved in the primaries, because it is a small number of people who actually elect the president of the USA.
Kansas Republican Primaries? It is sad. But it is what it is. Cruz think it is a big deal because he won Kansas. Brief history of Kansas primary winners.
2008 - Mike Huckabee 2012 - Rick Santorum 2016 - Ted Cruz
If you win Kansas? Hell, Bernie Sanders won Kansas yesterday. You are going to lose. Even Bob Dole (if anybody knows who he is) said yesterday that Cruz doesn't represent who the electorate is in Kansas, but only the small portion of the Republican Party who tend to be very active and extreme.
Good luck to those who oppose Trump, but I believe he will win the Republican nomination.
I think everyone feels that way about WND. (I don't do Breibart so I can't really comment but I've seen enough of MeM and Avengador's posting of WND stuff to know it would be a good place to go if I wanted to find out the latest about Batboy's social acclimation from being found in a cave.)
Rush and Chris Wallace : Discuss a potential Trump nomination...
WALLACE: How would you feel...? You talked about him bringing new people into the party. How would you feel if he ends up as the Republican nominee for president?
RUSH: Well, I would feel much of the way that I feel when anybody is elected. Could be... You deal with what you end up getting. I'm not under any illusion, Chris, that I have any ultimate say-so in this. I'm like anybody else that's in media: I've got my opinions; I share them. I'm not afraid of them. But you don't win everything, and, ultimately, you have to take what you get. I think, with the case of Trump, there's a much bigger upside than downside.
A lot of people disagree with me on this. But for the people who want somebody not of Washington, it's serious this time. It's real. The disconnect between the Republican Party establishment -- and the Democrat establishment -- and the people of this country is longer, broader, wider than I have ever seen it. These people in the establishment have been telling us they're the ones to fix everything, and everything they've tried to fix they've botched: TARP, the recession fix such as the stimulus bill. Transcript
Rush and Chris Wallace : Discuss a potential Trump nomination...
WALLACE: How would you feel...? You talked about him bringing new people into the party. How would you feel if he ends up as the Republican nominee for president?
RUSH: Well, I would feel much of the way that I feel when anybody is elected. Could be... You deal with what you end up getting. I'm not under any illusion, Chris, that I have any ultimate say-so in this. I'm like anybody else that's in media: I've got my opinions; I share them. I'm not afraid of them. But you don't win everything, and, ultimately, you have to take what you get. I think, with the case of Trump, there's a much bigger upside than downside.
A lot of people disagree with me on this. But for the people who want somebody not of Washington, it's serious this time. It's real. The disconnect between the Republican Party establishment -- and the Democrat establishment -- and the people of this country is longer, broader, wider than I have ever seen it. These people in the establishment have been telling us they're the ones to fix everything, and everything they've tried to fix they've botched: TARP, the recession fix such as the stimulus bill. Transcript
I'm afraid Trump wont do much but create drama and in the end not really do anything. Then Big Gov gets to say they were right all along and people will comply.
So vote for Hillary. Let her assist in the degradation without an interruption that would leave open a line of attack.
What all the skeptics and politicians are afraid of is that Trump might actually kick some ass and straighten this place out.
Face it, every successful businessman that has ever ran for political office had "the establishment" fight against them tooth 'n nail.
"The Establishment" is afraid that a businessman might run this country like a business, which is what it is. Only, it's a business that has run amok due to too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
What all the skeptics and politicians are afraid of is that Trump might actually kick some ass and straighten this place out.
Face it, every successful businessman that has ever ran for political office had "the establishment" fight against them tooth 'n nail.
"The Establishment" is afraid that a businessman might run this country like a business, which is what it is. Only, it's a business that has run amok due to too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Today
By end of second year as President.
Republicans explaining why they should all vote Democrat so Trump doesn't get second term.
What all the skeptics and politicians are afraid of is that Trump might actually kick some ass and straighten this place out.
Face it, every successful businessman that has ever ran for political office had "the establishment" fight against them tooth 'n nail.
"The Establishment" is afraid that a businessman might run this country like a business, which is what it is. Only, it's a business that has run amok due to too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Lets remember Trump is a skilled negotiator. What we are seeing is flamboyant showmanship. When he gets into office he has 1 goal and 2 options to get to goal.
Make this a better world for Trump Opt 1 - gain control by transforming the establishment hierarchy into his pawns. Opt 2 - destroy the hierarchy by flooding them out with his own pawns to establish a new hierarchy.
There are things Trump may do that benefit the private sector but he will only be doing it to improve his advantage in the private sector.
Lets say Trump does manage to (force) influence companies to bring production back from abroad, how many of those companies are going to be able to afford the massive retooling, rebuilding, rehiring, retraining, etc to accomplish it. How many agreements are going to be broken that included access to foreign markets that benefit domestic companies with employees still operating here. Now thats a lot of construction and I bet he has a long list of contractors just waiting for large projects....
He would be in a position to influence gov contracts. He would definitely have cabinet members heading gov agencies who already award grants associated with their mission. If you think I'm wrong, imagine how they would look to the public at large if they were arguing against bring jobs back to America. Trump : all they had to do was authorize a 500 billion restoring American jobs program to rebuild our manufacturing capability. But they say no. I guess it's only okay when it's Bank, insurance and GM that needs a bailout.
This Guy's net worth could sky rocket to become the richest man on earth before his first term ends.
If you think I'm wrong, imagine how they would look to the public at large if they were arguing against bring jobs back to America. Trump : all they had to do was authorize a 500 billion restoring American jobs program to rebuild our manufacturing capability.
Not to upset the apple cart or go off on a tangent, but those jobs aren't coming back in any great numbers short of some sort of global catastrophe.
Maybe there is some way to make the job exporters pay. It's not anyone elses fault and if we hit them in their pocketbook they'll feel that. Money is their only goal. I know , unicorns and wishful thinking.
Not to upset the apple cart or go off on a tangent, but those jobs aren't coming back in any great numbers short of some sort of global catastrophe.
I don't think companies moving manufacturing to china is the problem. I think the condition that makes companies choose china are the problem.
And the people responsible for those conditions are those who created them. the government
Changing it will not be an instant return of jobs from abroad, but it would transform the economic environment to a more friendly place to expand and grow the manufacturing and jobs. It would be the competition domestically that influences companies to weigh the cost of producing in china. That is where Obama could have secured a legacy and set the democratic party up for a decade of unstoppable elections.
All he had to was raise taxes on businesses and offer a tax deduction on all domestic production. Companies producing domestically would have enough deductions to nullify the new tax hike leaving businesses producing abroad with higher taxes. The democrats would have been able to say, raising taxes worked even though it was effectively a tax cut.......
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 03-06-2016).]
Maybe there is some way to make the job exporters pay. It's not anyone elses fault and if we hit them in their pocketbook they'll feel that. Money is their only goal. I know , unicorns and wishful thinking.
The consumers will pay, regardless of what is or is not done to the "job exporters". Fault? Real truth is, the consumers ARE the job exporters. Consumers made it quite clear that they would be very happy with cheaper goods and the only way to accomplish that was to make them with cheaper labor. It is simply impossible to make any consumer anywhere in the world buy more expensive goods when less expensive goods of comparable or close to comparable quality and value are available from a different source. We could bring every manufacturing job back to this country and in very short order, warehouses would be stacked to the ceiling in unsold merchandise. And please, don't even think about strong import tariffs--it never works.
The consumers will pay, regardless of what is or is not done to the "job exporters". Fault? Real truth is, the consumers ARE the job exporters. Consumers made it quite clear that they would be very happy with cheaper goods and the only way to accomplish that was to make them with cheaper labor. It is simply impossible to make any consumer anywhere in the world buy more expensive goods when less expensive goods of comparable or close to comparable quality and value are available from a different source. We could bring every manufacturing job back to this country and in very short order, warehouses would be stacked to the ceiling in unsold merchandise. And please, don't even think about strong import tariffs--it never works.
A lot of truth there! I would like to see some things like Johnson Controls being forced to return the Millions of $ in handouts that they received from taxpayers before they moved to Mexico and killed 1400 jobs.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 03-06-2016).]
Today I talked with two separate people who said they were voting for Trump.
Both said they voted for President Obama, one said he proudly voted for him and was a lifelong Democrat.
One, a guy from Baltimore, and a member of BLM....... Now a reluctant Trump supporter. (He still thinks Trump is a racist...)
The other, a low wage worker from here in Michigan said she was done with the Democrat Party. Hillary's "problems" and O'Malley being ignored by the Democrat party was her reason for switching.
This is really going to be an interesting election year.
I just really can't get into it this election cycle, and even tho I usually tend to take a long view of things and how they affect the nation years down the road, I'm gonna leave this one to the younger folks to hash and argue out. They will feel it's effects pro and con more than me--their call.
Oh I'll still vote, but for the first time in decades, it's not going to be an impassioned trip to the polling place by any means.
I just really can't get into it this election cycle, and even tho I usually tend to take a long view of things and how they affect the nation years down the road, I'm gonna leave this one to the younger folks to hash and argue out. They will feel it's effects pro and con more than me--their call.
Oh I'll still vote, but for the first time in decades, it's not going to be an impassioned trip to the polling place by any means.
This is a last throw of defiance in society's spirit. A blurry resonant cry of the fortitude from ancestors no one cares about.
I just really can't get into it this election cycle, and even tho I usually tend to take a long view of things and how they affect the nation years down the road, I'm gonna leave this one to the younger folks to hash and argue out. They will feel it's effects pro and con more than me--their call.
Oh I'll still vote, but for the first time in decades, it's not going to be an impassioned trip to the polling place by any means.
Or we could just stay home. You and I are going to cancel each others vote anyway. Good point about the younger folks! I can't believe that I had never thought of it that way. Now you've gone and changed me. I'm going to parrot your last sentence often. Thanks!
Maybe there is some way to make the job exporters pay. It's not anyone elses fault and if we hit them in their pocketbook they'll feel that. Money is their only goal. I know , unicorns and wishful thinking.
Hillary thinking.
I have to wonder, so does she plan to tax them as punishment? Does she know why they outsource? Would she be purposely killing the countries economy or just ignorantly?
Mitt Romney Files FEC Paperwork To Run In 2016 Election
Compared to the rest of the field, a man who has proven himself to be so White he's translucent should be a shoo-in for the nomination. AND he has name recognition already. After all, he DID get 60 million votes when he got his ass kicked in 2012.
There's one problem though. I don't see the same "base voter" that thinks Trump is a good idea because he's a "party outsider" pulling the lever for the former Governor of Mass.
"Look, I think if Mitt had really wanted to maneuver for the nomination, he wouldn't have given the speech he gave last week," Gingrich said on "Fox and Friends," referencing a Sunday interview in which Romney dodged a question about whether he would accept requests to become the nominee at a contested convention.
Gingrich said that Romney's speech was "so harsh and so intense" that he would be "unacceptable" as the nominee to Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
"It was such a vitriolic and nasty speech that it guaranteed that the guy who currently has the most votes and the most momentum would never accept Romney as sort of the draft of the convention," he added.
The former speaker said that there's a chance the primary could lead to a contested convention.
The political comment post of the year:
quote
Manhattan123
Let's all just pause for a moment to contemplate Newt Gingrich calling something "vitriolic and nasty."
Or we could just stay home. You and I are going to cancel each others vote anyway. Good point about the younger folks! I can't believe that I had never thought of it that way. Now you've gone and changed me. I'm going to parrot your last sentence often. Thanks!
Can't stay home--too many state/ local races the same time.
Compared to the rest of the field, a man who has proven himself to be so White he's translucent should be a shoo-in for the nomination.
I am beginning to think your aim is to offend. If I'm wrong, It's because of comments like the one quoted above. If I'm right, congratulations I'm offend.
