|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 13, 2015 14:36:05 GMT -5
Wonkette weighs in on manufactured Planned Parenthood scandal |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Aug 13, 2015 14:56:32 GMT -5
The tone in the thread has devolved a bit with terms like "nutjob" and "scumbag" being tossed around, in which I'm not totally innocent either. Let's all please remember that whether you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or just fed up with the whole thing, we can discuss the various merits of candidates without making fellow members feel unwelcome because their chosen party (or disaffection with all of them) is labeled "nutjob" or any other insulting terms. Carry on. So we can't talk about Trump?  Sure we can. As far as I'm concerned about the biggest insult is "Trump" anyways. So we can't talk about Trump? It would be so much easier to dismiss Trump as a "nutjub," but it would appear the reason he's making such gains is that he's saying the things that a large number of Americans are thinking. And that's quite disturbing to me. I read a column which theorizes that the angry Trump legions may not be as large as they appear to be. Which I hope to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 15:04:50 GMT -5
I presume there's also the very real chance that some of Trump's putative supporters are Democrats who are hoping like heck he's who their own party's nominee gets to face next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Aug 13, 2015 15:12:51 GMT -5
I presume there's also the very real chance that some of Trump's putative supporters are Democrats who are hoping like heck he's who their own party's nominee gets to face next year. <evil grin> |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 15:28:59 GMT -5
Of course, the danger is that somehow the fates conspire to actually put him in office. I wasn't kidding at all when I noted a few posts back that I didn't think there any chance in hell that Obama could win election in '08 (ditto for Hillary). My pick, purely on the basis of electability, would've been John Edwards, though of course that was before his extramarital conduct ruined everything. If it were 2008 (or 2007) again, I'd give Trump better odds than I would Obama or Hillary.
(My deep & abiding cynicism about Obama's profound shortcomings as president aside, I am of course very thankful I was spectacularly wrong.)
Which mainly goes to show why you don't want to turn to me for any sort of political prognostication, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Aug 13, 2015 15:33:14 GMT -5
I presume there's also the very real chance that some of Trump's putative supporters are Democrats who are hoping like heck he's who their own party's nominee gets to face next year. Isn't that how Rick Scott became governor of Florida? |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Aug 13, 2015 15:49:33 GMT -5
I presume there's also the very real chance that some of Trump's putative supporters are Democrats who are hoping like heck he's who their own party's nominee gets to face next year. Some are also hoping he'll run as an independent and bleed votes away from the GOP. You can place me in that camp. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Aug 13, 2015 16:03:21 GMT -5
I presume there's also the very real chance that some of Trump's putative supporters are Democrats who are hoping like heck he's who their own party's nominee gets to face next year. Some are also hoping he'll run as an independent and bleed votes away from the GOP. You can place me in that camp. I told my wife the very same thing last week. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 13, 2015 16:15:30 GMT -5
From what I understand, it will be very very difficult for Trump to run as an independent candidate. Many states have "sore loser" laws. These laws will not allow a candidate to place himself on the ballot as an independent if he has run previously in the cycle as a candidate for another party.
I would look for a link that explains it in more detail but I'm practically out the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Aug 13, 2015 16:18:44 GMT -5
From what I understand, it will be very very difficult for Trump to run as an independent candidate. Many states have "sore loser" laws. These laws will not allow a candidate to place himself on the ballot as an independent if he has run previously in the cycle as a candidate for another party. I would look for a link that explains it in more detail but I'm practically out the door. That's disappointing. My fantasy is that he's merely trolling the far right, forcing them to reveal their true colors. He's had some success with Huckabee in this regard. I was hoping his long game was to deny them the Presidency, whether or not he has any real chance himself. Sigh. I can dream. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 13, 2015 16:27:28 GMT -5
From what I understand, it will be very very difficult for Trump to run as an independent candidate. Many states have "sore loser" laws. These laws will not allow a candidate to place himself on the ballot as an independent if he has run previously in the cycle as a candidate for another party. I would look for a link that explains it in more detail but I'm practically out the door. In most states those laws do not apply to Presidential candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Aug 13, 2015 18:36:32 GMT -5
It would be so much easier to dismiss Trump as a "nutjub," but it would appear the reason he's making such gains is that he's saying the things that a large number of Americans are thinking. And that's quite disturbing to me. Here's an analysis that says Trump's appeal to many people is really the same as Sanders' appeal: That's from goplifer.com/ - the sanest Republican around. He goes on to say that this frustration comes from people approaching politics as consumers rather than as citizens. I'm not sure I'm with him all the way on that but the quoted part above is thought-provoking. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 13, 2015 18:42:41 GMT -5
It would be so much easier to dismiss Trump as a "nutjub," but it would appear the reason he's making such gains is that he's saying the things that a large number of Americans are thinking. And that's quite disturbing to me. Here's an analysis that says Trump's appeal to many people is really the same as Sanders' appeal: That's from goplifer.com/ - the sanest Republican around. He goes on to say that this frustration comes from people approaching politics as consumers rather than as citizens. I'm not sure I'm with him all the way on that but the quoted part above is thought-provoking. I'd considered as much, but the difference is that Sanders has policies and plans. I may have missed something, but all Trump seems to have is a Charlie Sheen sort of persona: apologetic for nothing, and people respond to that. He definitely isn't the status quo, but he deviates from it in a way very different from what Sanders is doing. I would LOVE, by the way, to see a Republican counterpart to Sanders -- someone who sides with aspects of the party, but has policies all his own and is beholden to no special interest nor political machine. I could be persuaded to vote for such a person depending upon his/her specific policies. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 18:51:57 GMT -5
So we can't talk about Trump? Sure we can. As far as I'm concerned about the biggest insult is "Trump" anyways. It would be so much easier to dismiss Trump as a "nutjub," but it would appear the reason he's making such gains is that he's saying the things that a large number of Americans are thinking. And that's quite disturbing to me. I read a column which theorizes that the angry Trump legions may not be as large as they appear to be. Which I hope to be true.
His argument is that despite historic leads in the primaries, polls don't paint a real picture of the electorate. Well then, why poll people? They hsay he has "only" a quarter of the Republican support. There are sixteen other candidates. I'd say that's significant. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Aug 13, 2015 18:57:07 GMT -5
I'd considered as much, but the difference is that Sanders has policies and plans. But are people attracted to Sanders because of the policies and plans, or because he's Mr. Outside to Hillary's Ms. Inside? |
|
