Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dogsauce said:
If Trump secures the nomination, he'd only be one well-timed terrorist atrocity away from the Whitehouse (remember the improbable popularity of Bush II?). There'd be a lot to gain for ISIS if they timed things to boost his corner.
Click to expand...

There's precedent for Presidential candidates being traitors:

Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation, later known as the “October Surprise,” which prevented the attempts by myself and then-US President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 US presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.
Click to expand...

‘Argo’ helps Iran’s dictatorship, harms democracy

And then there's Nixon:

The new release of extended versions of Nixon's papers now confirms this long-standing belief, usually dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" by Republican conservatives. Now it has been substantiated by none other than right-wing columnist George Will.

Nixon's newly revealed records show for certain that in 1968, as a presidential candidate, he ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them to refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson.

Nixon's interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams's 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation.
Click to expand...

George Will Confirms Nixon's Vietnam Treason
 
http://gawker.com/actually-ted-cruz...kboots-to-haul-u-1760843228?rev=1456256994262

O’Reilly: Here’s a policy question I need you to define for me tonight: 12 million illegal aliens here in America. Mr. Trump says he would deport them forcibly, that federal agents would round them up and send them back home. Costs a lot of money but he says it’s worth it because we just can’t allow the law to be broken this way. Would you round up 12 million illegal aliens this way here and if so, how?

Cruz: Listen, we should enforce the law. How do we enforce the law? Yes, we should deport them. We should build a wall, we should triple the border patrol and federal law requires that anyone here illegally that is apprehended should be deported.


O’Reilly: Would you go look for them, though? Mr. Trump would look for them to get them out. Would you do that if you were President?

Cruz: Look, Bill, of course you would. That’s what ICE exists for. We have law enforcement that looks for people who are violating the law that apprehends them and deports them. But Bill-

O’Reilly: Wait, wait, let me get this straight, because this is important, very important. So, and I use the same example: So Tommy O’Malley from County Cork, Ireland is over here and he overstays his Visa and he’s got a couple of kids and he settled into Long Island, and you, President Cruz, are gonna send the feds to his house, take him out and put him on a plane back to Ireland?

Cruz: You better believe that.
Click to expand...
 
Ted Cruz terrifies the shit out of me as does Rubio who wants to ban abortion completely. At least Trump isn't going in for any of that mad religious shit. And Cruz falsely attacking Rubio on his commitment to the Bible? It really comes to something if you hope Trump wins so that we don't have those two.
 
Yossarian said:
Trump and Rubio are both weird-looking in their own way, but there's something truly strange about Cruz - he looks like he murdered Pee-Wee Herman and stole his face.
Click to expand...

I think he looks like a cross between Tom Hanks and Robin Williams, but with none of the unstoppably heartwarming pan-generational appeal that such a hybrid would surely posess.
 
Illuminating, reading Daniel Drezner in today's WaPo (tldr: political pundits have by virtue of their punditry altered the expectations of the GOP bosses into thinking there is no possibility of Trump winning, so they haven't tried to stop him) and then Jeb Lund in today's Graun attributing Trump's success to the sheer anger and ressentiment of the people the pundits ignore. Trump's victories aren't mysterious if you understand why people are angry | Jeb Lund
 
Yes, the Jeb Lund article is the first Guardian articyle I have seen that makes any sense of support for The Donald.
 
bluescreen said:
Illuminating, reading Daniel Drezner in today's WaPo (tldr: political pundits have by virtue of their punditry altered the expectations of the GOP bosses into thinking there is no possibility of Trump winning, so they haven't tried to stop him) and then Jeb Lund in today's Graun attributing Trump's success to the sheer anger and ressentiment of the people the pundits ignore. Trump's victories aren't mysterious if you understand why people are angry | Jeb Lund
Click to expand...

I wonder if people in New York, San Francisco, or Washington really understand the deep seated anger boiling in the "flyover states".
 
tumblr_o2ytjeXTyk1s71q1zo1_500.png
 
Any guesses as to what the Tea Partiers/Right/Religious lot will do when their candidate of choice loses? Cruz, Rubio, Trump - don't think any of them can win but neither Clinton nor Sanders are likely to win them over and the Republican old school are still stupid enough to think Jeb Bush is the compromise choice. All that anger's going to go somewhere. Civil war in the party, new party, something new and worse. Hmh.
 
I might have been worrying about a Trump win starting WWIII (which is probably already under way anyway as we speak) but perhaps we should worry about a Trump loss starting the 2nd Civil War.
 
The article makes exactly that argument at the end, saying when Mexicans start getting deported en masse and Muslims start getting executed with pigs blood bullets, it's all on Hillary. Which, might be overstating it somewhat. But still, if your priority is to keep the GOP out no matter the nominee, Sanders has to be your best bet.

What's interesting is that the article says if Trump doesn't win then things change quite drastically and you can't make the same arguments, but to be honest I'm not so sure. Cruz and Rubio are terrible speakers, and certainly against Rubio Clinton would be able to debate him a new one. But I'm always wary of how much impact debates themselves have on the final vote. After all, it'll be the RNC and surrogates and so on doing all the hard work to discredit her, it's no longer just about 2 people stood in a room butting heads. Sure, they might be able to paint Cruz and Rubio as more experienced than Sanders, but polling still suggests he'd have a decent lead against them, whereas they'd beat Clinton. Sanders would still be focusing on the uplifting ads, sticking to the economic stuff, and Cruz/Rubio would be going heavy on the patriotism (in all its forms - guns, religion, abortion, muslims) but all those outliers who were attracted to Trump's no nonsense shtick might just find themselves preferring Bernie. Sanders is animated and passionate, which is something a lot of Trump supporters like. Cruz and Rubio are dead behind their eyes. The epitome of soulless suits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
DONALD TRUMP
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Kevbad the Bad
K
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
Replies
5
Views
499
frogwoman
frogwoman
editor
  • Locked
  • Poll
Merging the two Trump threads yes/no?
Replies
27
Views
725
editor
editor
Cloo
  • Poll
What was behind Trump shooting? make your bets now
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
164
Views
6K
Nylock
Nylock
Back
Top Bottom