Trump

[Conan71]

I'm not sure what a sucessful Bernie run would have said about America.

Except for maybe Americans like free stuff and smoking weed.

What??? You aren't stoned and living in your mother's basement still like the rest of us on TNF?

Bernie was more likable and much more honest about his intentions than Hilarity, that's for certain.

[Red Arrow]

What??? You aren't stoned and living in your mother's basement still like the rest of us on TNF?

What basement?  Our house is on a slab.
 

[Conan71]

What basement?  Our house is on a slab.
 

Tool shed or garage in your case, Red.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm not sure what a sucessful Bernie run would have said about America.

Except for maybe Americans like free stuff and smoking weed.

I am truly VERY curious now - what is it you think Trump's success says about America??

[Ed W]

I am truly VERY curious now - what is it you think Trump's success says about America??

You can never misunderestimate the stupidity of the .American people?

[heironymouspasparagus]

You can never misunderestimate the stupidity of the .American people?

Ain't dat da trufe!!

[erfalf]

I am truly VERY curious now - what is it you think Trump's success says about America??

Well, that is a good one.

If someone a little more palatable than Hillary were running against him, I would say it says a lot of not good things. That being said, I'm still not sure that would be completely accurate given the circumstances. Plus he is a celebrity which in my opinion carries some sort of leeway. People are really REALLY fed up with how they perceive the federal government is working against them. There are a host of reasons (not just border enforcement related). I think, IF Trump were to win, his voter base would consist of 33% just plain stupid, 33% just won't vote for Hillary, and the rest will just vote for whomever has an R next to their name. Even more depressing is I think the breakdown for a Hillary win would look quit similar.

The sad thing is I think Trump has far more in common with the Democrat platform than people are making it out to be. Particularly his economic policies which are extremely protectionist in nature. Far from a free market guy. If he didn't have an R next to his name I would have no idea he was a Republican. They followed up two pretty moderate politicians (McCain/Romney) with a guy that is even more left leaning in his policies. Trump even supported a wealth tax I believe. Hell, Hillary won't even openly say she is for that (whether she believes it or not I don't know, but she rails on the rich enough it stands to reason she might favor it). He's a democrat's wet dream on economics. So maybe everyone is stupid.

I agree with you all, his demeanor is not the type you would want. But when you give only two choices this is what will be bound to happen from time to time. There have been jerk presidents in the past. We survived. We will survive either of these candidates, most likely in spite of these two candidates.

Me personally, I am in the "can't vote Hillary" camp. The problem is, that's nearly in a dead heat with the "never Trump" camp. All in my head mind you. Since there really isn't much salvagable about this election, I'm with some of you in doing what little I can (1 vote) to embolden 3rd party candidates. This is what is truly needed in the end.

[TulsaMoon]

One thing is for certain, this election has brought out the worst in many organizations and media outlets. This forum IMO is a prime example of it all.

[cannon_fodder]

There are a number of people who "can't vote Hillary."  But Trump still has a lot of political support. It is important to look at where that support primary comes from. Broadly speaking, his baseline supporter is a native born straight (Trump was excited his #s bumped to 17% among gays) older  (only age category he wins is 65+ and a nearly straight-line descent to 60/30 for 18-29 year olds) white (35+% Clinton lead for many minority categories, Trump biggest advantage is +24 for white males) protestant (Trump is -11 Catholic, - 16 not religious, - 30 Jewish, - 36 Muslim) male (trump +6 Male, +24 white male), who is uneducated (non-college Trump 57, Clinton 36. Clinton leads post grad 60/30) and makes below the median salary (significant drop over 50k).  Poll after poll after poll finds the same basic thing. That doesn't mean that all, or even a majority, of his supporters fit that description. But if you had to peg a single demographic profile of a Trump supporter, that'd be it.

Essentially, the group that feels like they used to run this country and are missing out or losing control. White people are losing ground to several "minority" groups. Women keep gaining ground in broad categories of equality (though Trump is not far behind in the overall female vote). Those pesky gays keeping gaining rights keeping the straights down. Protestants are losing the numbers game to Hispanic Catholics and non-religious people. The perception is that a lack of education makes it harder and harder to get a good job. Income inequality is an obvious one. And, of course, old people always think the younger generation sucks.

Add all those together and the person is bound to feel threatened and want a strong man to stand up and keep them at the top.

Then you have the "team players" who will vote team "R" no matter what. As stated you have the Hillary haters (for a wide variety of reasons). Some single issue voters (build that wall, they took our jobs, cut my taxes, etc.). And some cult of the personality (He's rich. He speaks his mind. he's on TV a lot. I like his hair.).

Add it together and what do you get? Apparently, about 41% of the American population.

[AquaMan]

It shows a lot of immaturity and lack of insight to think that any of the third party candidates aren't subject to the same analyses with the same conclusions, that being, that none of them are "pure" in their politics. They all resemble each other. They can't get elected to more than a governor position unless they find some elements of mainstream politics to embrace. Thus, Johnson and Bernie rose to their levels because of personality, local brand awareness and competencies that don't transfer well to the national scene. Romney too in some respects.

My vision of the future would allow multiple parties who represent lots of viewpoints, voted by the people, who then have to form alliances with each other in order to be elected. Then, they could choose a leader from amongst their tribe who could be removed quickly with a vote of "no confidence" and replaced after another election. Wait....isn't' that already being done?

It would dissipate the power cartels who are using their money to force candidates down our throats and believe the most outrageous bs.

note: sorry, used the wrong word and misspelled it to boot! ALLIANCES is better.

[RecycleMichael]

I like his hair.

Hair is always political.

[AquaMan]

Even the lack of hair. Don't ever remember a truly bald president. Eisenhower came close though.

[AquaMan]

One thing is for certain, this election has brought out the worst in many organizations and media outlets. This forum IMO is a prime example of it all.

Why this one? It is tremendously tamer than the last two elections when extremist views were front and center. I get more extremism out of Facebook than here.

[swake]

It shows a lot of immaturity and lack of insight to think that any of the third party candidates aren't subject to the same analyses with the same conclusions, that being, that none of them are "pure" in their politics. They all resemble each other. They can't get elected to more than a governor position unless they find some elements of mainstream politics to embrace. Thus, Johnson and Bernie rose to their levels because of personality, local brand awareness and competencies that don't transfer well to the national scene. Romney too in some respects.

My vision of the future would allow multiple parties who represent lots of viewpoints, voted by the people, who then have to form alliances with each other in order to be elected. Then, they could choose a leader from amongst their tribe who could be removed quickly with a vote of "no confidence" and replaced after another election. Wait....isn't' that already being done?

It would dissipate the power cartels who are using their money to force candidates down our throats and believe the most outrageous bs.

note: sorry, used the wrong word and misspelled it to boot! ALLIANCES is better.

That's the parliamentary system

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well, that is a good one.

If someone a little more palatable than Hillary were running against him, I would say it says a lot of not good things. That being said, I'm still not sure that would be completely accurate given the circumstances. Plus he is a celebrity which in my opinion carries some sort of leeway. People are really REALLY fed up with how they perceive the federal government is working against them. There are a host of reasons (not just border enforcement related). I think, IF Trump were to win, his voter base would consist of 33% just plain stupid, 33% just won't vote for Hillary, and the rest will just vote for whomever has an R next to their name. Even more depressing is I think the breakdown for a Hillary win would look quit similar.

The sad thing is I think Trump has far more in common with the Democrat platform than people are making it out to be. Particularly his economic policies which are extremely protectionist in nature. Far from a free market guy. If he didn't have an R next to his name I would have no idea he was a Republican. They followed up two pretty moderate politicians (McCain/Romney) with a guy that is even more left leaning in his policies. Trump even supported a wealth tax I believe. Hell, Hillary won't even openly say she is for that (whether she believes it or not I don't know, but she rails on the rich enough it stands to reason she might favor it). He's a democrat's wet dream on economics. So maybe everyone is stupid.

I agree with you all, his demeanor is not the type you would want. But when you give only two choices this is what will be bound to happen from time to time. There have been jerk presidents in the past. We survived. We will survive either of these candidates, most likely in spite of these two candidates.

Me personally, I am in the "can't vote Hillary" camp. The problem is, that's nearly in a dead heat with the "never Trump" camp. All in my head mind you. Since there really isn't much salvagable about this election, I'm with some of you in doing what little I can (1 vote) to embolden 3rd party candidates. This is what is truly needed in the end.

Thank you!

I wish the R had gotten either McCain or Romney again.  And the D had gotten Bernie.  I really don't know which way I woulda gone with that setup....that would be an "embarrassment of riches" from a selection standpoint for me.  As opposed to just an embarrassment....

He really isn't much of a Dem...his wealth tax thing was a scam with lots of propaganda to make people think a certain way - it was a 1 time 14% or so tax, which I think he felt could be followed by cutting taxes again for the rich...probably try to do away with them completely, because in his mind there would no longer be a need for taxes, since that would have "erased" the debt (about $6 trillion then) so every rich guy could keep their money.


His demeanor is vile and disgusting - starting with his first big business partnership with Daddy Trump, he amassed an amazing array of discrimination against blacks and other minorities in the 14,000 or so tenant spaces they ran in New York.  Would not rent to minorities, only white.  And the ongoing trail of cheating and stealing from people he does business with is astounding.  Cannot imagine anyone voluntarily entering into a business agreement with him.  But hey, I expect to get paid when I provide goods/services to another entity....that's just me.

And don't get me wrong - I am not a Hillary fan either.  You know how I stand on some Constitutional issues where she is in disagreement with me!  You are right - we will survive - that's not always bad - but somewhere, sometime, somehow, before I die, I would like to see us THRIVE!!   She won't be able to hurt us much if elected, just because I don't see the mix of Congress changing very much, and that is a good thing!  That should prevent huge swings in either direction.  I hope.

I can even live with some of our Representatives maintaining the status quo.  Senators - well you have heard my rants about Inhofe, I am sure.  We need a David Boren, or Jim Jones, or Page Belcher, type back in for our state!

The scary one is the Supreme Court.  That has the potential to make for some very pernicious events down through the years.  And the fact that Senate is not gonna consider this nomination shows just how short sighted, and just flat out stupid, the Senate is as an entity under McConnell.  There is no strategy or "play book" or rational thought process going on.  They are throwing the dice on the hope that Trump will get elected and they can somehow rein him in.  The fewer the better on SC appointments for Trump AND Clinton!!  And I cringe, but think they will get at least 2 and may 3.  And if very unlucky, 4.