The Trump thread: All things Donald

[watcher1]

Latest poll says that 50% of Americans would be embarrassed if Trump was elected President.  On the other hand, 35% said they would be embarrassed if Hillary Clinton was President.  Not saying much for either party.

[Lois]

I dunno.  35% might be embarrassed if any woman was elected president.  Maybe it doesn't say much for Americans.

[watcher1]

I dunno.  35% might be embarrassed if any woman was elected president.  Maybe it doesn't say much for Americans.

I agree, Lois.  There are some still around who think a woman's place is in the home. Maybe those 35% are worried what the First Husband will be doing, while Lady President is conducting business.

[Lois]

You have a wonderfully dirty mind!

[watcher1]

You have a wonderfully dirty mind!

LOL - Thank you.  I will take that as a compliment. 

[Piper-Dreams]

We get it Joan, you love Trump more than god. 

Pffft! Trump is God to Joan. She worships at the alter of his hair.

[Piper-Dreams]

I'm going to laugh when Trump crashes and burns in the first few primaries and we realize he had Howard Dean syndrome.   

[Elizabeth]

I'm going to laugh when Trump crashes and burns in the first few primaries and we realize he had Howard Dean syndrome.   

Unfortunately you might be wrong about that.
He may well carry a lot of state primaries, but in the long run cause all sorts of confusion in the nominations for the Republican GOP.
He is without a doubt going to be a burden to the Republican Party and have to be dealt with.

Love,
Liz
 

[Piper-Dreams]

I'm going to laugh when Trump crashes and burns in the first few primaries and we realize he had Howard Dean syndrome.   

Unfortunately you might be wrong about that.
He may well carry a lot of state primaries, but in the long run cause all sorts of confusion in the nominations for the Republican GOP.
He is without a doubt going to be a burden to the Republican Party and have to be dealt with.

Love,
Liz
 

It's possible, but I really doubt it.  However, if he does it only benefits the Democrats.

[joan1984]

We get it Joan, you love Trump more than god. 

Pffft! Trump is God to Joan. She worships at the alter altar of his hair.

Fixed that for ya...

[IdleBoast]

We have a number of important questions about Trump in the UK:

1. Don't Americans find his existence embarrassing?
2. When he suffers the inevitable embarrassing defeat, how long will he take to spin it into a Muslim conspiracy?
3. Does he already have a book deal for the story of his persecution by immigrants faking election results, and how he can solve it next time?
4. Will nylon manufacturer stocks take a hit when he loses?



 

[joan1984]

http://www.diamondandsilkinc.com/how-to-switch/

It's catchy...

[Lois]

Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party EVER.

Go Trump Go!

[Lois]

I agree.  I think the multiparty parliamentary works better.
 

[watasch]

     I think it is great that our political process allows folks like Trump to campaign.  If one just takes a look through the years at all of the "outsider" types that have run for office it is a testimony towards just how open our system can be.  It also allows viewpoints to be expressed that normally would not be expressed.  It provides an outlet and often humor in the process.

     As for the viewpoint of those not involved with our politics (read that as anyone who has no vote in the process) to be honest and brutal; who cares what they think?  Regardless of who wins the election you (those outside of the country) will have to deal with the President as you have had to deal with any number of elected, and non-elected, representatives from other countries.

     So let us go on with this process!  I can honestly think of no better way to show just what the American style of democracy really means.  And when you (those outside of the USA) assume the mantle the USA has worn for some time, we will sit on the sidelines and "tsk tsk" along with the others.  As if our "tsk tsk" will have any impact on your elections! 

     

[MissBarbara]

     I think it is great that our political process allows folks like Trump to campaign.  If one just takes a look through the years at all of the "outsider" types that have run for office it is a testimony towards just how open our system can be.  It also allows viewpoints to be expressed that normally would not be expressed.  It provides an outlet and often humor in the process.

I completely agree with what you say here. If nothing else, the "outsiders" keep the regular candidates on their toes, often compelling to be specific in stating their political goals and promises. And, as in the case of Trump, they also provide an outlet for humor.

At the same time, though it depends on how you define an "outsider," I'm hard pressed to think of an "outsider" who has ever won the White House. If you mean someone without the backing of a major political party, that's never happened in our history. In fact, no one has ever even come close. If you mean someone without previous political experience, there are only two examples, both of whom had long-term military experience (Grant and Eisenhower). And Trump and Fiorina are the only candidates among the current crop, including both parties, with no previous political experience.

     As for the viewpoint of those not involved with our politics (read that as anyone who has no vote in the process) to be honest and brutal; who cares what they think?  Regardless of who wins the election you (those outside of the country) will have to deal with the President as you have had to deal with any number of elected, and non-elected, representatives from other countries.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I care what they think. As I've stated several times on this Board, chiefly in the face of Xenophobic Ugly Americans, those outside the U.S. often provide much more cogent and insightful view of the U.S. and American politics than we blinkered, partisan Americans. No, they have no vote in the process, but their insights and observations can well serve we Americans who do have a vote, and who exercise that vote.

[watasch]

And that is the good thing about our process; you can disagree all you want.  Yet the fact remains the other governments will have to deal with whoever we elect just as we have to deal with who ever the other countries have.

If we allow what other countries think affect our election process then they have undue influence on our system.  We are electing the President of the US, not "most popular" of the world.  If we get a President who is not ashamed to let everyone know the country being represented is the US and the interests of the US are of the highest priority then that President will do exactly what most citizens wanted and voted for. And if not, then the next election will remedy that situation.

[MissBarbara]

And that is the good thing about our process; you can disagree all you want.  Yet the fact remains the other governments will have to deal with whoever we elect just as we have to deal with who ever the other countries have.

If we allow what other countries think affect our election process then they have undue influence on our system.  We are electing the President of the US, not "most popular" of the world.  If we get a President who is not ashamed to let everyone know the country being represented is the US and the interests of the US are of the highest priority then that President will do exactly what most citizens wanted and voted for. And if not, then the next election will remedy that situation.

On the one hand, if the opinions or insights of "outsiders" help American voters make more intelligent and considered choices among the available candidates, then their opinions should be actively solicited -- and heeded.

On the other hand, if you think outsiders' opinions present an undue influence on American voters and the American political process, then you have your head in the ground. It's money, almost to the exclusion of any other factor -- most of it coming from good, old American corporations -- that presents, by far, the greatest pernicious influence to the American electoral and political process.

[Elizabeth]

And that is the good thing about our process; you can disagree all you want.  Yet the fact remains the other governments will have to deal with whoever we elect just as we have to deal with who ever the other countries have.

If we allow what other countries think affect our election process then they have undue influence on our system.  We are electing the President of the US, not "most popular" of the world.  If we get a President who is not ashamed to let everyone know the country being represented is the US and the interests of the US are of the highest priority then that President will do exactly what most citizens wanted and voted for. And if not, then the next election will remedy that situation.

On the one hand, if the opinions or insights of "outsiders" help American voters make more intelligent and considered choices among the available candidates, then their opinions should be actively solicited -- and heeded.

On the other hand, if you think outsiders' opinions present an undue influence on American voters and the American political process, then you have your head in the ground. It's money, almost to the exclusion of any other factor -- most of it coming from good, old American corporations -- that presents, by far, the greatest pernicious influence to the American electoral and political process.

Israel has for a very long time attempted to influence the Jewish Vote in this country, so as to have a political representation that was favorable to Israel. But again I'm sure money has played into as well by those in Israel who want to see a particular person in office. But in questioning the above..?? Does any country really want to see either Hillary or Donald in office.??.....

Love,
Liz

[watcher1]

On the other hand, if you think outsiders' opinions present an undue influence on American voters and the American political process, then you have your head in the ground. It's money, almost to the exclusion of any other factor -- most of it coming from good, old American corporations -- that presents, by far, the greatest pernicious influence to the American electoral and political process.

WOO, MissB!  I agree with what you wrote 100% and have been saying that for years. It is obscene that to run for the president of the United States, one will need to raise almost one billion dollars, if not more.  Just to be re-elected the mayor of Chicago, Emmanuel spent untold millions of dollars. Common sense dictates that these huge money donors are not giving this money out freely.  We common people suffer.