DescentBB

...is a joke.

I can't believe anyone is taking him seriously.

Because people are tired of having a wimp in office

woodchip wrote:Because people are tired of having a wimp in office

and would thus prefer a moron with a track record of failure(3 bankruptcies). The fact that anyone is taking him seriously is alarming, but I don't think he gets more than the sought-after publicity out of this 'candidacy'.Heck, even Bill O'Reilly called him disingenuous.

if trump ran the only thing he's hear is "Your Fired" a snowball in hell has more chance then he does

I know a couple of people who are really interested in him. Personally I have never followed him, but I'm not impressed. Anyone who looks at the country long enough can start saying what all of the disgruntled or dissatisfied folks want to hear. I'm not saying that is what he's doing, but it crossed my mind. I have reservations about having a business star in the White House anyway. It's actually scary how easy it would be, in my mind, to gain office saying all of the right things in a country where politics is such a joke. Therefore I reserve judgment until I see more of his track record, and right now I still think Ron Paul has the most legitimate candidacy.

There is no way, he is doing this for ratings. However, a VP pick wouldn't totally shock me if the Republican candidate was pretty far down in the polls.

if republicans don't pick someone who is moderate, this election will be a landslide for Dems.

...and to add one more. I think one of the few things that the Republicans were able to do to "stick" to Obama was this whole "celebrity" argument. The longer Trump is in there, the better the Obama campaign will be at inoculating themselves against it this time around.

Ah hell, let's vote all the oligarchs in too, their best friends are already there.

x2, if anybody was smart we'd hire joe-shmo farmer John as the president.

Lol. He'd be like a turd in a punchbowl .

flip wrote:Lol. He'd be like a turd in a punchbowl .

I'd love to throw a turd in that groups punchbowl! they deserve to have turd force fed to them.
So I'm happy as hell that Trump is stirring the pot. He says a lot of things neither party want you to hear as far as the competency of our elected officials and the bureaucrat lackeys they appoint to serve us.

I can think of lots of benefits for having him set an agenda for the executive branch because I see him as being a 'winning matters a lot more than making friends' kind of guy in the arena of world politics/world economy.

If his candidacy is able to make enough of the voters jump on his bandwagon because he promotes the kind of change in the quality of service our elected representatives should be giving us instead of letting them continue to serve their own little clique of powerbrokers and puppetmasters first, leaving the crumbs to us to fight over then it will be a good thing, even if he only disrupts the status quo for short while.
And if he actually gathers enough support to force the repub's to give him the nomination I think that would be great even if it meant he lost to Obama I would embrace that kind of destruction of one half of the one-party-disguised-as-two. Sure would beat the heck out of President Huckabee or Romney, etc. etc.
I'm completely sick and tired of the election being the choice of 'which one of these guys do you want to bend you over and drive it home?' I'm thrilled to think it could have a little bit of 'Let's stick it to them for a change' to it.

The only difference between Trump, and the other candidates out there…

No wait…

flip wrote:Ah hell, let's vote all the oligarchs in too, their best friends are already there.

and always have been and likely will continue to be, at the current level of political practice out there.

Spidey wrote:The only difference between Trump, and the other candidates out there…

No wait…

You mean "The Circus Comes to Town" atmosphere, or the fact they're all clowns? Seriously, the Republicans NEED to put up someone that's either not a total idiot (Palin), not a social conservative (Romney, Huckabee), a fashion queen (Trump), a retread (just about all of them) and has the bawls to actually lead.

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:The only difference between Trump, and the other candidates out there…

No wait…

You mean "The Circus Comes to Town" atmosphere, or the fact they're all clowns? Seriously, the Republicans NEED to put up someone that's either not a total idiot (Palin), not a social conservative (Romney, Huckabee), a fashion queen (Trump), a retread (just about all of them) and has the bawls to actually lead.

Why? After 4 years of a court jester being in office, Dumbo the Flying Elephant would probably win. If the only credentials you need are to have been a community organizer, hang around with terrorists/criminals and have your morals defined by a real wack job of a priest and to show case your legislative skill by voting present 140 times...then where do you get off the boat saying the republicans are lacking talent?

People have to be careful here.

Trump has about as much chance to win the presidency as Osama BinLaden does- but he does have a chance to split the 'anyone but Obama' vote.

I say get the Trump-of-a-joke out of there and run some real contenders.

So far the republicans have fielded WEAK candidates- and I don't really see anyone being strong enough to get the vote.

.

Bet51987 wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:.... but he does have a chance to split the 'anyone but Obama' vote.

Exactly what I'm hoping for and I hope he stays in right to the end. I hope Sarah Palin makes a run for it too.

Bee

Careful what you wish for. They could team up and win. I love the idea of that happening, think of the chaos! So many liberal weenies would be apoplectic! The lefties in the media wouldn't be able to contain themselves (not that they really try anymore). It would be so sweet, the party would be in ruins and the left would probably end up with serious fractures in their hyper over reaction to formulate a comback strategy for the following election cycle.

Dear God, if you are there, we deserve (in so many ways) a successful Trump/Palin Presidential bid. Please make it so. Amen
Has anyone seen my Mandarin for Dummy's book...

The republicans need their own Obama.

They need someone whose rhetoric is at least consistantly centrist, while still getting their base excited.

Gooberman wrote:The republicans need their own Obama.

They need someone whose rhetoric is at least consistantly centrist, while still getting their base excited.

While I appreciate your understanding of how the system works please don't encourage them to sustain it any longer!
As a party, what the repubs need is what the dems need....they need to piss off and die.

While I appreciate your understanding of how the system works please don't encourage them to sustain it any longer!
As a party, what the repubs need is what the dems need....they need to piss off and die.

Yep- so until then, Will...you guys will doom yourselves to more democrat-run government. yay

ThunderBunny wrote:

While I appreciate your understanding of how the system works please don't encourage them to sustain it any longer!
As a party, what the repubs need is what the dems need....they need to piss off and die.

Yep- so until then, Will...you guys will doom yourselves to more democrat-run government. yay

I'm not seeing enough of a distinction in the net result regardless of which party gets to have their guy sit in the big chair and play with the wooden hammer or have their guy fly on Air Force 1. A lot of difference in the talk, but not in the net result.
If talk mattered then Obama was the best President we ever had....
We have both parties expecting to be rewarded with our votes for the quality of their promises and then complaining that we peons are not smart enough to understand when we point to the horrible results of their 'work'.
So f''em all. Think of it as a bloodless revolution.

Think of it as a bloodless revolution.

Will... It aint...gonna...happen.

There are too many drones (especially on the democrat side.) They will always go straight party ticket DEM.

ThunderBunny wrote:

Think of it as a bloodless revolution.

Will... It aint...gonna...happen.

There are too many drones (especially on the democrat side.) They will always go straight party ticket DEM.

No empire, dictatorship, oligarchy etc. lasts. So it is inevitable, the further we drift from the original plan 'government of the people, by the people' the less protection we have from it happening.
We're reaching a critical point where the number of voters that believe they can supplement their lifestyle by voting to have someone else pay for it is above 50%. Game over when that happens.

Will Robinson wrote:
We're reaching a critical point where the number of voters that believe they can supplement their lifestyle by voting to have someone else pay for it is above 50%. Game over when that happens.

And America has just had it's wake-up call:

"S&P maintained its top-tier 'AAA/A-1+' credit rating on U.S. sovereign debt, saying the nation's "highly diversified" economy and "effective monetary policies" have helped support growth. But the ratings agency lowered its outlook for America's long-term credit rating to "negative" from "stable."

ThunderBunny wrote:

Think of it as a bloodless revolution.

Will... It aint...gonna...happen.

There are too many drones (especially on the democrat side.) They will always go straight party ticket DEM.

you have exit polling data to back that claim up(insofar as there is a party difference)?

woodchip wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
We're reaching a critical point where the number of voters that believe they can supplement their lifestyle by voting to have someone else pay for it is above 50%. Game over when that happens.

And America has just had it's wake-up call:

"S&P maintained its top-tier 'AAA/A-1+' credit rating on U.S. sovereign debt, saying the nation's "highly diversified" economy and "effective monetary policies" have helped support growth. But the ratings agency lowered its outlook for America's long-term credit rating to "negative" from "stable."

The caveat being that they would only lower the actual rating if the US didn't start to develop a serious long-term debt plan by 2013. Don't unload those bonds, just yet.

.

Bee, no doubt the Obama Care plan is a for the people plan. But unfortunately it is a politicians populist promise more than a viable piece of legislation.
It is an unsustainable promise and Obama's own team has told us that, at least they did before he scolded them and had the numbers reworked and/or removed from public view. I'm all for good service from the government and they probably could fund some form of catastrophic insurance for everyone if they got control of all the waste they indulge in by using our tax money to buy themselves votes with!!

Now it's certain that he's a joke:

Donald Trump's Solution on Gas Prices: Get Tough With Saudi Arabia; Seize Oil Fields in Libya and Iraq?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/04 ... -iraq.html

Either he's telegraphing that he's not serious about this or he's certifiable. Most likely it's the former.

Man, and just when you thought Trump was enough of a self-parody already...

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
We're reaching a critical point where the number of voters that believe they can supplement their lifestyle by voting to have someone else pay for it is above 50%. Game over when that happens.

And America has just had it's wake-up call:

"S&P maintained its top-tier 'AAA/A-1+' credit rating on U.S. sovereign debt, saying the nation's "highly diversified" economy and "effective monetary policies" have helped support growth. But the ratings agency lowered its outlook for America's long-term credit rating to "negative" from "stable."

The caveat being that they would only lower the actual rating if the US didn't start to develop a serious long-term debt plan by 2013. Don't unload those bonds, just yet.

The "negative" listing is in place. What is to come is a dropping of the AAA rating if Obama doesn't wake up.

Will wrote:I'm not seeing enough of a distinction in the net result regardless of which party gets to have their guy sit in the big chair and play with the wooden hammer or have their guy fly on Air Force 1. A lot of difference in the talk, but not in the net result.

I know this is a very popular open minded stance to take, but it just isn't true in reality. If Gore had won thousands of American troops would be alive, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqies. Tens of thousands of soldiers wouldn't be permanently disabled.

If McCain had won, there would be no national health care. Gays in the military wouldn't be an upcoming reality.

I don't want to rehash those debates here, but you can't deny that there are serious differences in whether or not a D or an R wiins.

Yes, there are many many ways that Obama is like Bush, but if you listened to his rhetoric during the campaign, he wasn't really hiding that fact.

What (I believe) frustrates you is that none of them are loyal to the American people first. A third party candidate isn't going to change that. To get to the national stage you need alot of TV time, that costs alot of money.....and alot of these people who give this money, expect something in return.

I have news for you, there is still no “national health care”. Just a few bad law changes.

Gays in the military are already a reality.

So you can see into the future and or alternative realities…nice…

Spidey wrote:I have news for you, there is still no “national health care”. Just a few bad law changes.

Gays in the military are already a reality.

So you can see into the future and or alternative realities…nice…

[/quote]

Exactly and Gore could have pulled that trigger just as easily as Bush did. It was a popular choice at the time and he is no stranger to making himself look big by going with the flow.

I don't count on a healthy voter defection being a death stroke to the status quo in one or two cycles but it might wound them enough to show people like Gooberman that they are mortal which would lead to big changes or the rise of a viable third party]

Exactly and Gore could have pulled that trigger just as easily as Bush did.

If you think Al Gore would have invaded Iraq then your tin foil hat needs to be loosened up a bit.

I don't count on a healthy voter defection being a death stroke to the status quo in one or two cycles but it might wound them enough to show people like Gooberman that they are mortal which would lead to big changes or the rise of a viable third party

9/10 times when you and Spidey choose to pick out semantics and dodge instead of address the issue I decide its not worth my time, but this is one issue that is. We've had this discussion across numerous threads now, and you never address the issue. The bottom line being,

You don't have to convince me that a D or an R are destructible, history is filled with that: Whig Party, Dixiecrats, Federalists, Democratic-Republican Party, Tea Party? You have the convince me that the American people are willing to stop watching 5 hours of television a day, getting pumped full of political ads, and start reading about what each candidate stands for. No one can absorb that much propaganda without having their opinions changed.

Until someone can get elected without the hordes of TV watchers, your "rise of a viable third party" will just be putting lipstick on a pig.

Me wrote:To get to the national stage you need alot of TV time, that costs alot of money.....and alot of these people who give this money, expect something in return.

Well, sure if you say it’s only semantics…but that leaves the problem of not knowing what the hell you really meant.

BTW, you also miss the point of making those corrections…

There were always gays in the military…always will be, allowing them to serve openly will not accomplish much of anything…(votes?)

As far as health care…your statement gives the “reform” (god I can hardly bring myself to say that) way too much credit.

As far as not being worth your time…sheesh, rhetorical statements are rarely worth any time, you’re just trying to hurt my feelings.

Gooberman wrote:

Exactly and Gore could have pulled that trigger just as easily as Bush did.

If you think Al Gore would have invaded Iraq then your tin foil hat needs to be loosened up a bit. ..

If you think Al Gore wouldn't invade Iraq (or any place ripe for the picking like that) if his handlers told him it would be politically advantageous to do so then you are the one who is wrong!

Would they have advised him to do so? We don't have any way to know. But lets assume you are right and he would have done what the democrats say Bush should have done instead.

If Gore sent all the forces to Afghanistan instead of splitting our troops and resources between Iraq and Afghanistan there is no guarantee he would have found bin Ladden and the very same way Islamo-fascists poured into Iraq to fight against the American led invasion they would have poured into Afghanistan. It would be no different to them, it wouldn't be their first time rushing up there to kill infidels.
They did so in the '70's when Carter let Zbigniew Brzezinski use the CIA to help fund the efforts against the Soviet Union. At the same american boys were going to spring break in Florida as a sort of right of passage after high school, Saudi Arabian, Yemeni, Syrian and Egyptian etc. young men were going to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Some would do a couple weeks and return home to brag about their joining the Afghani mujahideen and then go back up a second or third time with friends that were excited to join in the fun. That is where bin Ladden became who he is today, he was one of those young men. He formed and named al Queda in the wake of his time there and moved it out into the world. Afghanistan could be much worse for us, to make it that all we have to do is stay there longer and/or add more american bodies to it!

So would it really matter so much if the body count was tallied in Afghanistan instead of both places? Would Al have really racked up enough fewer deaths by keeping the jihadis in one place to make you think he wasn't like Bush? Would Obama have not continued the fight there if we never went to Iraq? I don't see why that would have mattered? He said he would have them out and he still has them there so unless you are telling me Gore wouldn't have gone after bin Ladden at all I just don't think Obama's contribution and continuing things changes.

Dude, Democrats don’t send people to die in useless foreign (undeclared) wars, just ask Kennedy and Johnson.

Back to the topic...

Sorry guys, Trump is FAIL. We need a real candidate to oppose the Obama machine.