Trump 2016

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump's whole "I'm too rich to be bought" line is hilarious. It's true, he won't be bought out by America's oligarchs - because he already is one, so he'll represent their interests out of direct self-interest, as opposed to mediated self-interest.

I said pages and pages back that the only credible winners were Bush, Paul, Rubio and (on the outside) Cruz. Seems I wildly overestimated Paul and mildly overestimated Bush - although I still think the potential I saw in Bush was real, even if his campaign didn't exploit it. But I stick by my analysis - it's gonna be Rubio or, less likely, Cruz.
 
Maybe Trump is the Antichrist. I mean, despite desperate claims that he has no chance of winning the nomination, he just won't stop doing good in the polls. That Worcester event mentioned to sabotage? 12,000 in audience. Credible people such as Bush, Marco and Cruz just keep fluctuating with each other below the 10% marking.

The biggest advantage to ensure Trump has a good chance is that, unlike for the 2012 election, the GOP does not have a "The Guy" like they did for Mitt Romney. Sure, before the gates on the Trump Train opened up, they wanted it to be Jeb, but the writing is clearly on the wall - nobody wants to say "3 Bush's in 30 Years."

And after the tarnishing of GWB to many things, why would they?
 
And to think, I was actually worried about Trump making it into the primaries

1448222893498.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dudeofteenage said:
I said pages and pages back that the only credible winners were Bush, Paul, Rubio and (on the outside) Cruz. Seems I wildly overestimated Paul and mildly overestimated Bush - although I still think the potential I saw in Bush was real, even if his campaign didn't exploit it. But I stick by my analysis - it's gonna be Rubio or, less likely, Cruz.
Click to expand...

Rubio seems like the 'pick' to me as well, at least for the GOP establishment. What interests me at this point is watching what the party will do to attempt to derail Trump's campaign for the nomination. Unfortunately, their field is very weak in terms of general electability, where they'll have to garner the votes of Independents in order to take the White House.
 
OfflineCyberBully said:
Rubio seems like the 'pick' to me as well, at least for the GOP establishment. What interests me at this point is watching what the party will do to attempt to derail Trump's campaign for the nomination. Unfortunately, their field is very weak in terms of general electability, where they'll have to garner the votes of Independents in order to take the White House.
Click to expand...
Nah. All the GOP has to do is see enough apathy among Hillary's base to ensure victory. Which'll be easy once Juanita Broadderick is brought up.
 
OfflineCyberBully said:
Rubio seems like the 'pick' to me as well, at least for the GOP establishment. What interests me at this point is watching what the party will do to attempt to derail Trump's campaign for the nomination. Unfortunately, their field is very weak in terms of general electability, where they'll have to garner the votes of Independents in order to take the White House.
Click to expand...

I could see Rubio winning over independents. Cruz much less so.

*Asterisk* said:
Nah. All the GOP has to do is see enough apathy among Hillary's base to ensure victory. Which'll be easy once Juanita Broadderick is brought up.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember hearing this in 2012 and 2008 - once Benghazi and his pastor were brought up, Obama was going to crumble.

It's easy to overestimate the general public's anger at these kinds of micro-scandals when you're used to only talking to people who've been hating Clinton since 1993.
 
Dudeofteenage said:
Trump's whole "I'm too rich to be bought" line is hilarious. It's true, he won't be bought out by America's oligarchs - because he already is one, so he'll represent their interests out of direct self-interest, as opposed to mediated self-interest.

I said pages and pages back that the only credible winners were Bush, Paul, Rubio and (on the outside) Cruz. Seems I wildly overestimated Paul and mildly overestimated Bush - although I still think the potential I saw in Bush was real, even if his campaign didn't exploit it. But I stick by my analysis - it's gonna be Rubio or, less likely, Cruz.
Click to expand...
The point is that initiating tax reform is a potential career ending proposition for any career politician because they rely on corporate campaign donations. While it's true Trump has some vested interest in keeping the tax code as it is because he owns a large corporation, I'd say Trump's conflict of interest (which is losing a little bit of money) is nowhere near the conflict of interest almost everyone else has (which is to risk losing their entire career.) I could easily imagine Trump's ego or Trump's desire to do the right thing trump the relatively small amount of money he'd lose in the process.

Now that I think about it, Trump's corporation might be one of the few that benefits from tax reform because he owns a bunch of hotels and the tourism industry relies so heavily on economic prosperity - a lot of people only go on vacations in good times. Also, the tourism industry is already one of the more competitive industries in the United States; suddenly having to pay taxes could bring down corporations in certain industries who end up having real competition for the first time in a long time, but tourism is already fairly competitive.
TrippinKahlua said:
Maybe Trump is the Antichrist. I mean, despite desperate claims that he has no chance of winning the nomination, he just won't stop doing good in the polls. That Worcester event mentioned to sabotage? 12,000 in audience. Credible people such as Bush, Marco and Cruz just keep fluctuating with each other below the 10% marking.

The biggest advantage to ensure Trump has a good chance is that, unlike for the 2012 election, the GOP does not have a "The Guy" like they did for Mitt Romney. Sure, before the gates on the Trump Train opened up, they wanted it to be Jeb, but the writing is clearly on the wall - nobody wants to say "3 Bush's in 30 Years."

And after the tarnishing of GWB to many things, why would they?
Click to expand...
Even if 50% of Republicans chose Trump over the other candidates, I still imagine Trump losing the Republican primary where traditionalist kinds of people are the ones voting. Maybe I have too little confidence in the primary system.

In my opinion, Rubio is one of the worst candidates. He comes across to me as corrupt and slimy, and when he speaks he seems like he's hesitant, struggling to tell people whatever they want to hear right now so he can get ahead. It comes across to me like the ancient Roman tactic - there's an actual reformer on the stage for the first time in decades, so the establishment promotes a competitor who promises double, but with no intention of actually going through with any of it. For 200 years, it worked every time. That is, until Caesar.

Also Rubio is a congressman who regularly skips work and has for a long time.
 
Dudeofteenage said:
I seem to remember hearing this in 2012 and 2008 - once Benghazi and his pastor were brought up, Obama was going to crumble.

It's easy to overestimate the general public's anger at these kinds of micro-scandals when you're used to only talking to people who've been hating Clinton since 1993.
Click to expand...

The Clinton scandals are the furthest thing from minor. He and the misses are and always have been incredibly crooked, nasty, and corrupt financially, personally, and politically. Rickey Ray Rector, the pimping of government property up to and including Arlington, Revlon, the use of military force to distract from a personal criminal trial, obstruction of justice, the repeated smearing of private citizens who are no longer useful to them, the pathological and continuous lying, perjury, and serious rape accusations are hardly minor details.


This isn't even coming from the hard right crowd. The most regular, scathing, and pointed analysis of Clinton scandals have generally come from the left.

AnOminous said:
Nobody gives a fuck about Clinton's dick. Nobody.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember hearing this exact same story about Bill Cosby. How did that work out?
 
*Asterisk* said:
Nah. All the GOP has to do is see enough apathy among Hillary's base to ensure victory. Which'll be easy once Juanita Broadderick is brought up.
Click to expand...

I doubt that would be enough to derail her campaign. Whoever her opponent is, they've provided more than enough fodder for her to play the "yes, I may not be ideal, but at least I'm not these nutbars" card. This is where electability will come into play. The GOP field are jockeying for the base - including those who support the "Liberty Caucus" - and seem, at times, to be trying to outdo each other's extreme views.

And when it comes to elections, usually what tends to steer a voter's choice is how the policies of the candidate may affect their lives. Regardless of how crooked Hillary is, people who depend on Social Security aren't going to vote for someone who advocates cutting it back or dismantling it.
 
OfflineCyberBully said:
I doubt that would be enough to derail her campaign. Whoever her opponent is, they've provided more than enough fodder for her to play the "yes, I may not be ideal, but at least I'm not these nutbars" card. This is where electability will come into play. The GOP field are jockeying for the base - including those who support the "Liberty Caucus" - and seem, at times, to be trying to outdo each other's extreme views.

And when it comes to elections, usually what tends to steer a voter's choice is how the policies of the candidate may affect their lives. Regardless of how crooked Hillary is, people who depend on Social Security aren't going to vote for someone who advocates cutting it back or dismantling it.
Click to expand...
Trump advocates neither of those positions.
 
*Asterisk* said:
Nah. All the GOP has to do is see enough apathy among Hillary's base to ensure victory. Which'll be easy once Juanita Broadderick is brought up.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed some recent developments, but what makes you think the Juanita Broderick "scandal" is some kind of of bombshell for Republicans in 2016? It wasn't even a major issue when Bill was running, I don't see it getting much traction twenty years later with anyone other than the AM radio crowd.

At least the Lewsinsky stuff was a legit scandal, but that barely did any damage to Bill. Not sure why it would be super effective against Hillary.
 
*Asterisk* said:
Fucking Christ, even the Cosby camp offered a better defense. The Cosby scandal, by the way, is also the closest parallel to this case, and the shit only hit the fan in the last year.
Click to expand...

If that's true then why is it no one is talking about it, even Fox News? I follow politics pretty closely and this thread is the only place I've seen Juanita Broderick mentioned in decades.

*Asterisk* said:
On another note, for so childishly dismissing a serious issue like this, you can kindly get fucked.
Click to expand...

No need to get nasty, bro.
 
Skeealator said:
If that's true then why is it no one is talking about it, even Fox News? I follow politics pretty closely and this thread is the only place I've seen Juanita Broderick mentioned in decades.
Click to expand...
The Clintons are an exceptionally powerful group, and people have short memories. The exact same thing happened with Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Woody Allen, and many others.

That said, it's not like nobody's been talking about it, even recently, even on the left, and even on Fox News:


Of course, with the last one, a big reason it was ignored was because of the Jerry Jarrett principle and its inverse: If you tell someone A, B, and C are true, when you work them on D, E, and F, they'll still believe you. The same thing's holds for Ann Coulter: She bullshits on A, B, and C, so when she tells the truth on D, E, and F, no one believes her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom