Trump has the worst negatives of just about any candidate in modern history.

[Cecilie1200]

Right, right, "We love Trump, and only our opinions and feelings matter. How DARE you think your preferences are more important, just because there are more of you? Don't you understand, we're ANGRY?! The world revolves around our pissy tantrum, damn it!" The GOP isn't choosing between genuflecting to Trumpettes or spitting on them, Chuckles. They're choosing between 35% of primary voters (many of whom are less than reliable supporters in a general election), and 65% of primary voters. Believe it or not, there are other people in the GOP world than just you, however much you think you and Trump are the whole frigging universe.

And proudly pointing to "look how many more people came out to cast an uninformed vote based on emotion" is not going to be an arguing point with someone who thinks there are already way more people voting than really should.

Not so much.

Just pointing out that in your calculations, you have to consider the price of NOT choosing Trump, as much as you are worried about losing those anti-trump people.

An alternative method would be to start fighting back against the libs on their slander of Trump and to strongly make the case that he is NOT another freaking "hitler" and is nothing to be scared of.

They're considering the price of not choosing Trump. I don't think YOU are considering the price of choosing him, but I know they are.

An alternative method would be to stop considering telling the truth "slander" and getting your panties in a wad because - HORRORS! - politics is a rough game. This is not news to anyone else. You and your candidate need to butch up and stop thinking it's everyone else's job to accommodate you.

He's A LOT to be scared of.

1. Save the rhetoric about "butching up". That is nothing but a popular way, these days, of dismissing arguments that you cannot rebut honestly.

2. He is a lot to be scared of? Quick, off the top of your head, what is the worst case scenario with Trump?

Be concise, be specific. NO rambling please. No filler about, no long lists of adjectives.

Simple and direct.

No, honey, that IS the rebuttal when your argument is "They're MEAN!!! Waaaaahhhh!"

Worst-case scenario off the top of my head? He hires people in his administration similar to the way he's hired them in his campaign, thinking he can just get his way by running his mouth, and ends up with Executive Branch corruption and incompetence on a scale to rival Ulysses S. Grant. Congress stonewalls his wackadoodle "policy" du jour and he builds and expands on Obama's executive-order monarchy plan, because his ego just assumes he's too smart and wonderful to need that Constitutional check-and-balance crap and he can just bullshit his way through it by running his gums in the media and firing up his Trump zombies to support him. Or even worse, he returns to collaborating with his old buddies, Bill and Hillary, maybe by bribing them with some sort of appointment, and between them, they manage to convince some of the more unscrupulous Congresscritters to cooperate with him, and he actually starts passing some of his "I thought about it for a whole five minutes" policy decisions. Either way, the economy tanks even more than it already has, federal government encroachment expands, and the nation's slide into a disorganized mishmash of societal chaos progresses.

That's just off the top of my head, though. I could think more specifically, but I really don't require those sorts of nightmares on a nice Sunday.

So, worst case scenario, that you are so afraid of is maybe Grid Lock, like we have had before,

or maybe, just maybe, "economy tanks, government expands, status quo on society".

Without any link between those policies and how that happens.

Deporting Illegals is not going to cause that.

Limiting work visas in not going to cause that.

Trying and failing to renegotiate bad trade deals might. But Trump is playing to his experience in negotiating there, and as President of the United States would have tremendous leverage.

As I said, if the GOP leadership starts seriously addressing the hysterical concerns the corrupt media and lying libs have raised, most people could be reassured that those extreme concerns were made up bullshit.

And thus, be open to voting for Trump or Against Hillary.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? I didn't say "gridlock". I said, "executive order overreach by someone with too much ego to accept that anyone has the right to gridlock him".

I'm not really looking to spend my Sunday writing a dissertation on the nightmare of a Donald Trump presidency, but I can answer specific questions.

Part of the problem with predicting a Trump presidency is that he's extremely "malleable" (to quote Jimmy Carter) and easily manipulated, if you know how to go about it. Therefore, what he's going to do is going to depend a lot on who's pushing what and finds the right triggers to flip. Candidates like Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders have guiding principles they operate by, however much you like or hate them and regardless of their reasons for doing so. Donald Trump has never had a guiding principle in his life other than his own ego and aggrandizement, which means his policy is going to be up for grabs to whomever can flatter him the best.

1) I don't see Donald Trump deporting much of anyone who isn't already getting deported. I DO see him antagonizing the hell out of Mexico and further damaging relations with them. Not that I don't think there are serious problems with the state of those relations now, but they ARE our next-door neighbor and an important trading partner, and degrading communications with them through open hostility is not a plan. And I have serious concerns and suspicions about contradictions between his bombast about "southern walls" - which subject I REALLY doubt he has explored in any depth - and his real-life approach of employing illegals, outsourcing work, and associating with other rich people who do the same.

His remarks have already signaled a dangerous fluidity on the subject of work visas, requiring only for someone to approach him in the right way and with the right incentive to throw it open for the ol' "people who do the work Americans won't" excuse.

2) I have serious doubts about his diplomatic skills in regards to negotiating trade deals. Frankly, his business history tells the story of him getting outside the realm of just collecting rent and residuals, pushing grandiose schemes that flop, and leaving investors and creditors holding the bag and sweeping up the rubble. In the case of the United States government, the people are both the investors and the creditors, and we can't afford that crap. I also don't think that his past history of suckering people into loaning him money is going to be as useful in convincing other countries to agree to trade deal stipulations that favor the US. And I think his perception of what favors the US in trade is seriously limited and flawed.

What I see is him needlessly antagonizing trade partners while achieving nothing useful in negotiating, storming and tantrum-throwing and pouting about how it's all their fault for being "mean" to him, and then touching off a trade war with the people he's just pissed off and motivated into fighting. I see him imposing punitive tariffs on imports and taxes on American companies doing business overseas AND foreign companies investing in the US, and bringing the economy to a grinding halt while the average American ends up paying higher prices while having less ability to get good jobs and increase buying power.

3) I further see American social freedoms being further hemmed in, either by whomever pets his ego the best or by Trump himself because someone ran afoul of him. The lack of time he spends thinking about and grasping complex issues is evident in nearly everything he says, but it's utterly appalling on the myriad subjects that have never really touched on his life, and which therefore bore him. It's too easy to envision him carelessly tossing off something like his "punishing women who have abortions" riff simply because someone put five seconds into thinking about a way to phrase the issue to trick him. It apparently isn't very difficult to do.

You should know that none of these views have been formed by anyone "slandering" him or misrepresenting him. They come from his actual words and actions and personality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only thing inaccurate about the title of this thread are the words "just about."

Well to be fair i dont know presidential history enough to know how hated prior candidates were. Trump is in the shitter to be sure tho

they've been pretty clear that no one has ever had his negatives since they've been measuring those things.

most of the so-called negatives are creations of the biased media

No, most of the negatives are creations of the media simply letting Trump talk and reporting the results.

if anything media has gone too easy on him because they were afraid he'd take his ball and start a third party.

Maybe. Maybe he's just too much fun and too good for ratings without them needing to massage the story at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the intelligent middle is taking over the GOP, and you libs cant stand it.

absolutely correct, which leaves out the far right and your kind.

you are one dumb asshole. You preach every day from the far left and then claim to be in the middle. you are no more in the middle than Fidel Castro (you know, the one who make obozo look like a bozo).

The ad homs keep coming because you can only make 7th grade comments.

I am center right, you are far right reactionary, and we the mainstream sensible part of the Party will not let you take it over.

 

[Correll]

YOur words jerk face. "Are you saying you are not a racist and that you have not used the race card all the time?" I responded appropriately to your slander. As to the OP, as I have said, there is nothing like having your own Party Leadership join in the marginalization of their front runner and a significant portion of their own base.

My words are accurate. You are a racist. You falsely accuse your enemies of racism, which is a far right fascistic tactic. Trump deserves to be marginalized with his supporters. You do not represent a majority of the Party, a majority of America, but you do represent unAmerican agendas.

You words are not accurate. I am not a racist. I do not falsely accuse my enemies of racism, that is your game. Trump does NOT deserve to be marginalized, nor do his supporters.

Depending on the issue, I may or may not represent a majority of the party and/or America.

There is nothing unAmerican about my agenda.

All of the above accusations are you way of dismissing people who disagree with you so that you can avoid having to defend your positions based on their merits.

 

[Correll]

Not so much.

Just pointing out that in your calculations, you have to consider the price of NOT choosing Trump, as much as you are worried about losing those anti-trump people.

An alternative method would be to start fighting back against the libs on their slander of Trump and to strongly make the case that he is NOT another freaking "hitler" and is nothing to be scared of.

They're considering the price of not choosing Trump. I don't think YOU are considering the price of choosing him, but I know they are.

An alternative method would be to stop considering telling the truth "slander" and getting your panties in a wad because - HORRORS! - politics is a rough game. This is not news to anyone else. You and your candidate need to butch up and stop thinking it's everyone else's job to accommodate you.

He's A LOT to be scared of.

1. Save the rhetoric about "butching up". That is nothing but a popular way, these days, of dismissing arguments that you cannot rebut honestly.

2. He is a lot to be scared of? Quick, off the top of your head, what is the worst case scenario with Trump?

Be concise, be specific. NO rambling please. No filler about, no long lists of adjectives.

Simple and direct.

No, honey, that IS the rebuttal when your argument is "They're MEAN!!! Waaaaahhhh!"

Worst-case scenario off the top of my head? He hires people in his administration similar to the way he's hired them in his campaign, thinking he can just get his way by running his mouth, and ends up with Executive Branch corruption and incompetence on a scale to rival Ulysses S. Grant. Congress stonewalls his wackadoodle "policy" du jour and he builds and expands on Obama's executive-order monarchy plan, because his ego just assumes he's too smart and wonderful to need that Constitutional check-and-balance crap and he can just bullshit his way through it by running his gums in the media and firing up his Trump zombies to support him. Or even worse, he returns to collaborating with his old buddies, Bill and Hillary, maybe by bribing them with some sort of appointment, and between them, they manage to convince some of the more unscrupulous Congresscritters to cooperate with him, and he actually starts passing some of his "I thought about it for a whole five minutes" policy decisions. Either way, the economy tanks even more than it already has, federal government encroachment expands, and the nation's slide into a disorganized mishmash of societal chaos progresses.

That's just off the top of my head, though. I could think more specifically, but I really don't require those sorts of nightmares on a nice Sunday.

So, worst case scenario, that you are so afraid of is maybe Grid Lock, like we have had before,

or maybe, just maybe, "economy tanks, government expands, status quo on society".

Without any link between those policies and how that happens.

Deporting Illegals is not going to cause that.

Limiting work visas in not going to cause that.

Trying and failing to renegotiate bad trade deals might. But Trump is playing to his experience in negotiating there, and as President of the United States would have tremendous leverage.

As I said, if the GOP leadership starts seriously addressing the hysterical concerns the corrupt media and lying libs have raised, most people could be reassured that those extreme concerns were made up bullshit.

And thus, be open to voting for Trump or Against Hillary.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? I didn't say "gridlock". I said, "executive order overreach by someone with too much ego to accept that anyone has the right to gridlock him".

I'm not really looking to spend my Sunday writing a dissertation on the nightmare of a Donald Trump presidency, but I can answer specific questions.

Part of the problem with predicting a Trump presidency is that he's extremely "malleable" (to quote Jimmy Carter) and easily manipulated, if you know how to go about it. Therefore, what he's going to do is going to depend a lot on who's pushing what and finds the right triggers to flip. Candidates like Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders have guiding principles they operate by, however much you like or hate them and regardless of their reasons for doing so. Donald Trump has never had a guiding principle in his life other than his own ego and aggrandizement, which means his policy is going to be up for grabs to whomever can flatter him the best.

1) I don't see Donald Trump deporting much of anyone who isn't already getting deported. I DO see him antagonizing the hell out of Mexico and further damaging relations with them. Not that I don't think there are serious problems with the state of those relations now, but they ARE our next-door neighbor and an important trading partner, and degrading communications with them through open hostility is not a plan. And I have serious concerns and suspicions about contradictions between his bombast about "southern walls" - which subject I REALLY doubt he has explored in any depth - and his real-life approach of employing illegals, outsourcing work, and associating with other rich people who do the same.

His remarks have already signaled a dangerous fluidity on the subject of work visas, requiring only for someone to approach him in the right way and with the right incentive to throw it open for the ol' "people who do the work Americans won't" excuse.

2) I have serious doubts about his diplomatic skills in regards to negotiating trade deals. Frankly, his business history tells the story of him getting outside the realm of just collecting rent and residuals, pushing grandiose schemes that flop, and leaving investors and creditors holding the bag and sweeping up the rubble. In the case of the United States government, the people are both the investors and the creditors, and we can't afford that crap. I also don't think that his past history of suckering people into loaning him money is going to be as useful in convincing other countries to agree to trade deal stipulations that favor the US. And I think his perception of what favors the US in trade is seriously limited and flawed.

What I see is him needlessly antagonizing trade partners while achieving nothing useful in negotiating, storming and tantrum-throwing and pouting about how it's all their fault for being "mean" to him, and then touching off a trade war with the people he's just pissed off and motivated into fighting. I see him imposing punitive tariffs on imports and taxes on American companies doing business overseas AND foreign companies investing in the US, and bringing the economy to a grinding halt while the average American ends up paying higher prices while having less ability to get good jobs and increase buying power.

3) I further see American social freedoms being further hemmed in, either by whomever pets his ego the best or by Trump himself because someone ran afoul of him. The lack of time he spends thinking about and grasping complex issues is evident in nearly everything he says, but it's utterly appalling on the myriad subjects that have never really touched on his life, and which therefore bore him. It's too easy to envision him carelessly tossing off something like his "punishing women who have abortions" riff simply because someone put five seconds into thinking about a way to phrase the issue to trick him. It apparently isn't very difficult to do.

You should know that none of these views have been formed by anyone "slandering" him or misrepresenting him. They come from his actual words and actions and personality.

1. What gives you the idea that he is easily swayed?

2. Mexico has a policy that violates our Sovereignty constantly on a massive scale, ie encouraging illegal immigration. Any relationship with Mexico based on reality should be worse unless they immediately starting working in good faith to help US resolve this.

3. We have a 450 trillion dollar a year trade deficit. He will be the first President in a long time that will be thinking of Trade in the context of advancing American interests. He will have tremendous leverage as the leader of the world's largest market. Considering the horrific policy we have now, the bar to do better or at least not worse, is just about as low as it can be.

4. Note how quickly he reversed himself on "punishing women" when he was more fully informed on the subject. He is obviously open to constructive criticism and new information.



If the GOP would, instead of validating the attempt to paint Trump and much of the GOP base as bigots and hicks, and challenge the idea that Trump is the worst thing that ever happened, we can turn this panic off and reverse the trend of those numbers quickly.

 

[Correll]

the intelligent middle is taking over the GOP, and you libs cant stand it.

absolutely correct, which leaves out the far right and your kind.

you are one dumb asshole. You preach every day from the far left and then claim to be in the middle. you are no more in the middle than Fidel Castro (you know, the one who make obozo look like a bozo).

The ad homs keep coming because you can only make 7th grade comments.

I am center right, you are far right reactionary, and we the mainstream sensible part of the Party will not let you take it over.

Your comments are not very advanced. They are not much more than "me good, you bad".

 

[JakeStarkey]

YOur words jerk face. "Are you saying you are not a racist and that you have not used the race card all the time?" I responded appropriately to your slander. As to the OP, as I have said, there is nothing like having your own Party Leadership join in the marginalization of their front runner and a significant portion of their own base.

My words are accurate. You are a racist. You falsely accuse your enemies of racism, which is a far right fascistic tactic. Trump deserves to be marginalized with his supporters. You do not represent a majority of the Party, a majority of America, but you do represent unAmerican agendas.

You words are not accurate. I am not a racist. I do not falsely accuse my enemies of racism, that is your game. Trump does NOT deserve to be marginalized, nor do his supporters. Depending on the issue, I may or may not represent a majority of the party and/or America. There is nothing unAmerican about my agenda. All of the above accusations are you way of dismissing people who disagree with you so that you can avoid having to defend your positions based on their merits.

You accuse me of what you are: you are a racist, a fascist, you do accuse your enemies of racism and lying. Trump is marginalizing himself with his mouth and prancing and dancing. Your ilk do not support a majority of the party. Yes, you are unAmerican and represent tendencies that imperil America.

Trump's idiotic comments on McCain, on a disabled journalist, on Hispanics, on Moslems, on abortion, so forth so on all the time, clearly demonstrate he cannot be our President.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the intelligent middle is taking over the GOP, and you libs cant stand it.

absolutely correct, which leaves out the far right and your kind.

you are one dumb asshole. You preach every day from the far left and then claim to be in the middle. you are no more in the middle than Fidel Castro (you know, the one who make obozo look like a bozo).

The ad homs keep coming because you can only make 7th grade comments.I am center right, you are far right reactionary, and we the mainstream sensible part of the Party will not let you take it over.

Your comments are not very advanced. They are not much more than "me good, you bad".

You are projecting, amigo.

 

[Correll]

YOur words jerk face. "Are you saying you are not a racist and that you have not used the race card all the time?" I responded appropriately to your slander. As to the OP, as I have said, there is nothing like having your own Party Leadership join in the marginalization of their front runner and a significant portion of their own base.

My words are accurate. You are a racist. You falsely accuse your enemies of racism, which is a far right fascistic tactic. Trump deserves to be marginalized with his supporters. You do not represent a majority of the Party, a majority of America, but you do represent unAmerican agendas.

You words are not accurate. I am not a racist. I do not falsely accuse my enemies of racism, that is your game. Trump does NOT deserve to be marginalized, nor do his supporters. Depending on the issue, I may or may not represent a majority of the party and/or America. There is nothing unAmerican about my agenda. All of the above accusations are you way of dismissing people who disagree with you so that you can avoid having to defend your positions based on their merits.

You accuse me of what you are: you are a racist, a fascist, you do accuse your enemies of racism and lying. Trump is marginalizing himself with his mouth and prancing and dancing. Your ilk do not support a majority of the party. Yes, you are unAmerican and represent tendencies that imperil America.

You do nothing but make these empty statements, and then pretend that you have proven your case.

And you insult everyone who disagrees with you with the most poisonous slander.

That is why people call you an asshole, not because they are out of ideas, but because your behavior calls for it.

 

[Correll]

the intelligent middle is taking over the GOP, and you libs cant stand it.

absolutely correct, which leaves out the far right and your kind.

you are one dumb asshole. You preach every day from the far left and then claim to be in the middle. you are no more in the middle than Fidel Castro (you know, the one who make obozo look like a bozo).

The ad homs keep coming because you can only make 7th grade comments.I am center right, you are far right reactionary, and we the mainstream sensible part of the Party will not let you take it over.

Your comments are not very advanced. They are not much more than "me good, you bad".

You are projecting, amigo.

i am constantly the one who is trying to steer conversations to the issues.

YOu are one who is constantly refusing to do so, because you claim to have already proven something, or because the person in question does not deserve an answer because they are racist, or unamerican, or far right, or some such bullshit reason.

 

[Toro]

The only thing inaccurate about the title of this thread are the words "just about."

Nothing like having your own party leadership agreeing with their enemies that their own base is a bunch of bigots and hicks.

You ever think about the long term impact of that?

The leadership is worried about the long term impact of nominating Trump.

I am not hearing the leadership calling Trump supporters bigots and hicks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

YOur words jerk face. "Are you saying you are not a racist and that you have not used the race card all the time?" I responded appropriately to your slander. As to the OP, as I have said, there is nothing like having your own Party Leadership join in the marginalization of their front runner and a significant portion of their own base.

My words are accurate. You are a racist. You falsely accuse your enemies of racism, which is a far right fascistic tactic. Trump deserves to be marginalized with his supporters. You do not represent a majority of the Party, a majority of America, but you do represent unAmerican agendas.

You words are not accurate. I am not a racist. I do not falsely accuse my enemies of racism, that is your game. Trump does NOT deserve to be marginalized, nor do his supporters. Depending on the issue, I may or may not represent a majority of the party and/or America. There is nothing unAmerican about my agenda. All of the above accusations are you way of dismissing people who disagree with you so that you can avoid having to defend your positions based on their merits.

You accuse me of what you are: you are a racist, a fascist, you do accuse your enemies of racism and lying. Trump is marginalizing himself with his mouth and prancing and dancing. Your ilk do not support a majority of the party. Yes, you are unAmerican and represent tendencies that imperil America.

You do nothing but make these empty statements, and then pretend that you have proven your case. And you insult everyone who disagrees with you with the most poisonous slander. That is why people call you an asshole, not because they are out of ideas, but because your behavior calls for it.

I proved my case long ago, and having been merely toying with your inept responses. And I am quite willing to continue calling out those Trumps who are bigots and hicks, like Correll and Redfish, etc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They're considering the price of not choosing Trump. I don't think YOU are considering the price of choosing him, but I know they are.

An alternative method would be to stop considering telling the truth "slander" and getting your panties in a wad because - HORRORS! - politics is a rough game. This is not news to anyone else. You and your candidate need to butch up and stop thinking it's everyone else's job to accommodate you.

He's A LOT to be scared of.

1. Save the rhetoric about "butching up". That is nothing but a popular way, these days, of dismissing arguments that you cannot rebut honestly.

2. He is a lot to be scared of? Quick, off the top of your head, what is the worst case scenario with Trump?

Be concise, be specific. NO rambling please. No filler about, no long lists of adjectives.

Simple and direct.

No, honey, that IS the rebuttal when your argument is "They're MEAN!!! Waaaaahhhh!"

Worst-case scenario off the top of my head? He hires people in his administration similar to the way he's hired them in his campaign, thinking he can just get his way by running his mouth, and ends up with Executive Branch corruption and incompetence on a scale to rival Ulysses S. Grant. Congress stonewalls his wackadoodle "policy" du jour and he builds and expands on Obama's executive-order monarchy plan, because his ego just assumes he's too smart and wonderful to need that Constitutional check-and-balance crap and he can just bullshit his way through it by running his gums in the media and firing up his Trump zombies to support him. Or even worse, he returns to collaborating with his old buddies, Bill and Hillary, maybe by bribing them with some sort of appointment, and between them, they manage to convince some of the more unscrupulous Congresscritters to cooperate with him, and he actually starts passing some of his "I thought about it for a whole five minutes" policy decisions. Either way, the economy tanks even more than it already has, federal government encroachment expands, and the nation's slide into a disorganized mishmash of societal chaos progresses.

That's just off the top of my head, though. I could think more specifically, but I really don't require those sorts of nightmares on a nice Sunday.

So, worst case scenario, that you are so afraid of is maybe Grid Lock, like we have had before,

or maybe, just maybe, "economy tanks, government expands, status quo on society".

Without any link between those policies and how that happens.

Deporting Illegals is not going to cause that.

Limiting work visas in not going to cause that.

Trying and failing to renegotiate bad trade deals might. But Trump is playing to his experience in negotiating there, and as President of the United States would have tremendous leverage.

As I said, if the GOP leadership starts seriously addressing the hysterical concerns the corrupt media and lying libs have raised, most people could be reassured that those extreme concerns were made up bullshit.

And thus, be open to voting for Trump or Against Hillary.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? I didn't say "gridlock". I said, "executive order overreach by someone with too much ego to accept that anyone has the right to gridlock him".

I'm not really looking to spend my Sunday writing a dissertation on the nightmare of a Donald Trump presidency, but I can answer specific questions.

Part of the problem with predicting a Trump presidency is that he's extremely "malleable" (to quote Jimmy Carter) and easily manipulated, if you know how to go about it. Therefore, what he's going to do is going to depend a lot on who's pushing what and finds the right triggers to flip. Candidates like Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders have guiding principles they operate by, however much you like or hate them and regardless of their reasons for doing so. Donald Trump has never had a guiding principle in his life other than his own ego and aggrandizement, which means his policy is going to be up for grabs to whomever can flatter him the best.

1) I don't see Donald Trump deporting much of anyone who isn't already getting deported. I DO see him antagonizing the hell out of Mexico and further damaging relations with them. Not that I don't think there are serious problems with the state of those relations now, but they ARE our next-door neighbor and an important trading partner, and degrading communications with them through open hostility is not a plan. And I have serious concerns and suspicions about contradictions between his bombast about "southern walls" - which subject I REALLY doubt he has explored in any depth - and his real-life approach of employing illegals, outsourcing work, and associating with other rich people who do the same.

His remarks have already signaled a dangerous fluidity on the subject of work visas, requiring only for someone to approach him in the right way and with the right incentive to throw it open for the ol' "people who do the work Americans won't" excuse.

2) I have serious doubts about his diplomatic skills in regards to negotiating trade deals. Frankly, his business history tells the story of him getting outside the realm of just collecting rent and residuals, pushing grandiose schemes that flop, and leaving investors and creditors holding the bag and sweeping up the rubble. In the case of the United States government, the people are both the investors and the creditors, and we can't afford that crap. I also don't think that his past history of suckering people into loaning him money is going to be as useful in convincing other countries to agree to trade deal stipulations that favor the US. And I think his perception of what favors the US in trade is seriously limited and flawed.

What I see is him needlessly antagonizing trade partners while achieving nothing useful in negotiating, storming and tantrum-throwing and pouting about how it's all their fault for being "mean" to him, and then touching off a trade war with the people he's just pissed off and motivated into fighting. I see him imposing punitive tariffs on imports and taxes on American companies doing business overseas AND foreign companies investing in the US, and bringing the economy to a grinding halt while the average American ends up paying higher prices while having less ability to get good jobs and increase buying power.

3) I further see American social freedoms being further hemmed in, either by whomever pets his ego the best or by Trump himself because someone ran afoul of him. The lack of time he spends thinking about and grasping complex issues is evident in nearly everything he says, but it's utterly appalling on the myriad subjects that have never really touched on his life, and which therefore bore him. It's too easy to envision him carelessly tossing off something like his "punishing women who have abortions" riff simply because someone put five seconds into thinking about a way to phrase the issue to trick him. It apparently isn't very difficult to do.

You should know that none of these views have been formed by anyone "slandering" him or misrepresenting him. They come from his actual words and actions and personality.

1. What gives you the idea that he is easily swayed?

I think I actually said "easily manipulated". Why do I think that? Let's start with the fact that the guy has had three trophy wives, two models and an actress, the two exes of which took him for big bucks despite prenup agreements. Trophy wifing isn't a casual game, particularly when it comes to negotiating that prenup; it's ALL about finding your sucker and manipulating his ego. You think there aren't scads of beautiful women competing? The winner is usually the best manipulator. (And no, Tiny Hands, they don't want you because you're such a stud.)

Then let's move on to his shameless pandering to whomever he's addressing at the moment. You can say, "Oh, that's just politicking", but successful politicians with ideological principles don't flip-flop to get the audience du jour to like them. They find different ways to tailor and deliver the same message. Donald Trump can be persuaded to say and do what people want because his ego can't stand the idea of someone not venerating him, or worse, disagreeing with him or criticizing him.

Let's also consider his utter lack of anything like a set of guiding principles to lend his policies structural coherence, and his abysmal ignorance about most subjects. It doesn't take hurricane-force winds to blow a ship around if that ship has no rudder or anchor. Do you really think it's that difficult to persuade someone on a subject about which they know little or nothing, and can't be bothered to learn? Politics is full of people whose primary job skill is persuasiveness. Donald Trump gets routinely mousetrapped into taking conflicting positions - sometimes in the same conversation - by journalists, for God's sake.

Finally, look at the flip side of Trump's egotistical inability to ever be criticized or challenged on anything without going ballistic: his constant of equating "good person" with "he likes me". Any time another person's name is brought up to Donald Trump, he does one of two things. He either begins to personally denigrate them because they aren't supporters of his, or he reacts with, "Oh, yeah, he's a great guy. We're friends. He loves me. Great guy." This is a man whose massive, fragile conceit has made him vulnerable to flattery and manipulation.

2. Mexico has a policy that violates our Sovereignty constantly on a massive scale, ie encouraging illegal immigration. Any relationship with Mexico based on reality should be worse unless they immediately starting working in good faith to help US resolve this.

I don't deny that Mexico is a problem, or that the response to it should be based in reality. On the contrary, it's one of the reasons I refuse to support Trump. A realistic policy responding to Mexico's behavior is NOT to march in and try to beat them to death with your swinging cod, or to suffocate them with the sheer weight of your testosterone-soaked ego. Trump has already antagonized Mexico and made them defensive and hostile in any dealings with them, particularly if those dealings involve Donald Trump. However much you might think they deserve it, that still doesn't make it smart or productive in the long run.

3. We have a 450 trillion dollar a year trade deficit. He will be the first President in a long time that will be thinking of Trade in the context of advancing American interests. He will have tremendous leverage as the leader of the world's largest market. Considering the horrific policy we have now, the bar to do better or at least not worse, is just about as low as it can be.

I can't imagine what makes you think Donald Trump knows much of anything about international trade, and every time I hear about "trade deficit", I wonder the same thing about the person saying it.

Walter Williams addressed this in a very clear manner in a recent column:

A trade deficit is when people in one country buy more from another country than the other country’s people buy from them. There cannot be a trade deficit in a true economic sense. Let’s examine this.

I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me. That means I have a trade deficit with my grocer. My grocer buys more from his wholesaler than his wholesaler buys from him. But there is really no trade imbalance, whether my grocer is down the street, in Canada or, God forbid, in China.

Here is what happens: When I purchase $100 worth of groceries, my goods account (groceries) rises, but my capital account (money) falls by $100. For my grocer, it is the opposite. His goods account falls by $100, but his capital account rises by $100. Looking at only the goods account, we would see trade deficits, but if we included the capital accounts, we would see a trade balance. That is true whether we are talking about domestic trade or we are talking about foreign trade.

The uninformed buys into the mercantilist creed that trade deficits are bad and trade surpluses are good.

He goes on to note that the 1930s had trade surpluses every year except 1936. Clearly, trade surpluses do not equal prosperity.

International trade operates under the same general principles as domestic trade. When we, as consumers, purchase goods from China and the Chinese do not spend a like amount for goods from us, there is a current account deficit. In 2015, Americans purchased $482 billion worth of goods from China. The Chinese purchased only $116 billion worth of goods from us, producing a current account deficit with China of $366 billion.

Instead of purchasing tangible goods, the Chinese purchase capital goods — such as corporate stocks, bonds and U.S. Treasury debt instruments. The Chinese purchase more capital goods from us than we purchase of the same from them. That means the deficit on our current account is matched by the surplus on our capital account.

This issue is also explored in this paper from the Cato Institute:

Are Trade Deficits Really Bad News?

Do I think Donald Trump knows the full story on trade deficits and trade balances? I have no idea. But to listen to his rhetoric, he either doesn't have a clue about international trade, or he's cynically lying his ass off to manipulate supporters who don't have a clue.

4. Note how quickly he reversed himself on "punishing women" when he was more fully informed on the subject. He is obviously open to constructive criticism and new information.

The question to ask is, why does he NEED to be "constructively criticized" on so many things? Why is he wandering around, shooting his mouth off about issues on which he hasn't spent five minutes thought, or bothered to have anyone else explain to him? Has someone been keeping it a secret from him that these issues come up in Presidential campaigns, not to mention the actual job? That he's going to be asked about them, and might want to have something to say? Do you see Ted Cruz having to walk back some half-assed "Oh, gee, I never thought about it before" comment every week, or more often sometimes? No, you don't, because Ted Cruz came to the test after studying and preparing, not just planning to wing it with his "good brain".

The time to become informed on the subject of abortion, or any current political issue, is BEFORE you campaign to be President, not on the fly.

If the GOP would, instead of validating the attempt to paint Trump and much of the GOP base as bigots and hicks, and challenge the idea that Trump is the worst thing that ever happened, we can turn this panic off and reverse the trend of those numbers quickly.

WHY should the GOP not validate the "attempt to paint Trump as a bigot and hick"? He IS. He's ignorant white trash with money, and HE'S the one painting himself that way. You can't blame other people for simply noticing and commenting on it.

The GOP doesn't owe you OR Trump any effort to try to paper over his foolish capering and misbehavior, nor is there a single reason under the sun for them to want to "turn the panic off" or reverse his trends. He's doing it to himself, and in the process giving everyone who isn't a Trumpette no reason whatsoever to save him, and loads of reasons not to.

 

[Correll]

The only thing inaccurate about the title of this thread are the words "just about."

Nothing like having your own party leadership agreeing with their enemies that their own base is a bunch of bigots and hicks.

You ever think about the long term impact of that?

The leadership is worried about the long term impact of nominating Trump.

I am not hearing the leadership calling Trump supporters bigots and hicks.

If Trump is winning so much be with a bigoted message as the GOP leadership is agreeing, that is indirectly agreeing with the LIb Myth that the GOP party is the party of White Racism.

They need to be challenging that meme, not embracing it.

They are destroying the party.

 

[Correll]

YOur words jerk face. "Are you saying you are not a racist and that you have not used the race card all the time?" I responded appropriately to your slander. As to the OP, as I have said, there is nothing like having your own Party Leadership join in the marginalization of their front runner and a significant portion of their own base.

My words are accurate. You are a racist. You falsely accuse your enemies of racism, which is a far right fascistic tactic. Trump deserves to be marginalized with his supporters. You do not represent a majority of the Party, a majority of America, but you do represent unAmerican agendas.

You words are not accurate. I am not a racist. I do not falsely accuse my enemies of racism, that is your game. Trump does NOT deserve to be marginalized, nor do his supporters. Depending on the issue, I may or may not represent a majority of the party and/or America. There is nothing unAmerican about my agenda. All of the above accusations are you way of dismissing people who disagree with you so that you can avoid having to defend your positions based on their merits.

You accuse me of what you are: you are a racist, a fascist, you do accuse your enemies of racism and lying. Trump is marginalizing himself with his mouth and prancing and dancing. Your ilk do not support a majority of the party. Yes, you are unAmerican and represent tendencies that imperil America.

You do nothing but make these empty statements, and then pretend that you have proven your case. And you insult everyone who disagrees with you with the most poisonous slander. That is why people call you an asshole, not because they are out of ideas, but because your behavior calls for it.

I proved my case long ago, and having been merely toying with your inept responses. And I am quite willing to continue calling out those Trumps who are bigots and hicks, like Correll and Redfish, etc.

And you just made an empty claim, "supported" by referencing earlier empty claims, and you insulted Redfish and myself.

INSTEAD of actually supporting your slanderous claims.

YOu just demonstrated the behavior I accused you of.

Behavior like that, is why you get called an asshole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only thing inaccurate about the title of this thread are the words "just about."

Nothing like having your own party leadership agreeing with their enemies that their own base is a bunch of bigots and hicks.

You ever think about the long term impact of that?

The leadership is worried about the long term impact of nominating Trump.

I am not hearing the leadership calling Trump supporters bigots and hicks.

If Trump is winning so much be with a bigoted message as the GOP leadership is agreeing, that is indirectly agreeing with the LIb Myth that the GOP party is the party of White Racism.

They need to be challenging that meme, not embracing it.

They are destroying the party.

Has it occurred to you that the people destroying the GOP in this particular regard are the people supporting Trump with a bigoted message?

Again, why should the GOP feel at all motivated to defend Trump's insane statements, rather than condemning them and distancing themselves from him?

 

[Correll]

1. Save the rhetoric about "butching up". That is nothing but a popular way, these days, of dismissing arguments that you cannot rebut honestly.

2. He is a lot to be scared of? Quick, off the top of your head, what is the worst case scenario with Trump?

Be concise, be specific. NO rambling please. No filler about, no long lists of adjectives.

Simple and direct.

No, honey, that IS the rebuttal when your argument is "They're MEAN!!! Waaaaahhhh!"

Worst-case scenario off the top of my head? He hires people in his administration similar to the way he's hired them in his campaign, thinking he can just get his way by running his mouth, and ends up with Executive Branch corruption and incompetence on a scale to rival Ulysses S. Grant. Congress stonewalls his wackadoodle "policy" du jour and he builds and expands on Obama's executive-order monarchy plan, because his ego just assumes he's too smart and wonderful to need that Constitutional check-and-balance crap and he can just bullshit his way through it by running his gums in the media and firing up his Trump zombies to support him. Or even worse, he returns to collaborating with his old buddies, Bill and Hillary, maybe by bribing them with some sort of appointment, and between them, they manage to convince some of the more unscrupulous Congresscritters to cooperate with him, and he actually starts passing some of his "I thought about it for a whole five minutes" policy decisions. Either way, the economy tanks even more than it already has, federal government encroachment expands, and the nation's slide into a disorganized mishmash of societal chaos progresses.

That's just off the top of my head, though. I could think more specifically, but I really don't require those sorts of nightmares on a nice Sunday.

So, worst case scenario, that you are so afraid of is maybe Grid Lock, like we have had before,

or maybe, just maybe, "economy tanks, government expands, status quo on society".

Without any link between those policies and how that happens.

Deporting Illegals is not going to cause that.

Limiting work visas in not going to cause that.

Trying and failing to renegotiate bad trade deals might. But Trump is playing to his experience in negotiating there, and as President of the United States would have tremendous leverage.

As I said, if the GOP leadership starts seriously addressing the hysterical concerns the corrupt media and lying libs have raised, most people could be reassured that those extreme concerns were made up bullshit.

And thus, be open to voting for Trump or Against Hillary.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? I didn't say "gridlock". I said, "executive order overreach by someone with too much ego to accept that anyone has the right to gridlock him".

I'm not really looking to spend my Sunday writing a dissertation on the nightmare of a Donald Trump presidency, but I can answer specific questions.

Part of the problem with predicting a Trump presidency is that he's extremely "malleable" (to quote Jimmy Carter) and easily manipulated, if you know how to go about it. Therefore, what he's going to do is going to depend a lot on who's pushing what and finds the right triggers to flip. Candidates like Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders have guiding principles they operate by, however much you like or hate them and regardless of their reasons for doing so. Donald Trump has never had a guiding principle in his life other than his own ego and aggrandizement, which means his policy is going to be up for grabs to whomever can flatter him the best.

1) I don't see Donald Trump deporting much of anyone who isn't already getting deported. I DO see him antagonizing the hell out of Mexico and further damaging relations with them. Not that I don't think there are serious problems with the state of those relations now, but they ARE our next-door neighbor and an important trading partner, and degrading communications with them through open hostility is not a plan. And I have serious concerns and suspicions about contradictions between his bombast about "southern walls" - which subject I REALLY doubt he has explored in any depth - and his real-life approach of employing illegals, outsourcing work, and associating with other rich people who do the same.

His remarks have already signaled a dangerous fluidity on the subject of work visas, requiring only for someone to approach him in the right way and with the right incentive to throw it open for the ol' "people who do the work Americans won't" excuse.

2) I have serious doubts about his diplomatic skills in regards to negotiating trade deals. Frankly, his business history tells the story of him getting outside the realm of just collecting rent and residuals, pushing grandiose schemes that flop, and leaving investors and creditors holding the bag and sweeping up the rubble. In the case of the United States government, the people are both the investors and the creditors, and we can't afford that crap. I also don't think that his past history of suckering people into loaning him money is going to be as useful in convincing other countries to agree to trade deal stipulations that favor the US. And I think his perception of what favors the US in trade is seriously limited and flawed.

What I see is him needlessly antagonizing trade partners while achieving nothing useful in negotiating, storming and tantrum-throwing and pouting about how it's all their fault for being "mean" to him, and then touching off a trade war with the people he's just pissed off and motivated into fighting. I see him imposing punitive tariffs on imports and taxes on American companies doing business overseas AND foreign companies investing in the US, and bringing the economy to a grinding halt while the average American ends up paying higher prices while having less ability to get good jobs and increase buying power.

3) I further see American social freedoms being further hemmed in, either by whomever pets his ego the best or by Trump himself because someone ran afoul of him. The lack of time he spends thinking about and grasping complex issues is evident in nearly everything he says, but it's utterly appalling on the myriad subjects that have never really touched on his life, and which therefore bore him. It's too easy to envision him carelessly tossing off something like his "punishing women who have abortions" riff simply because someone put five seconds into thinking about a way to phrase the issue to trick him. It apparently isn't very difficult to do.

You should know that none of these views have been formed by anyone "slandering" him or misrepresenting him. They come from his actual words and actions and personality.

1. What gives you the idea that he is easily swayed?

I think I actually said "easily manipulated". Why do I think that? Let's start with the fact that the guy has had three trophy wives, two models and an actress, the two exes of which took him for big bucks despite prenup agreements. Trophy wifing isn't a casual game, particularly when it comes to negotiating that prenup; it's ALL about finding your sucker and manipulating his ego. You think there aren't scads of beautiful women competing? The winner is usually the best manipulator. (And no, Tiny Hands, they don't want you because you're such a stud.)

Then let's move on to his shameless pandering to whomever he's addressing at the moment. You can say, "Oh, that's just politicking", but successful politicians with ideological principles don't flip-flop to get the audience du jour to like them. They find different ways to tailor and deliver the same message. Donald Trump can be persuaded to say and do what people want because his ego can't stand the idea of someone not venerating him, or worse, disagreeing with him or criticizing him.

Let's also consider his utter lack of anything like a set of guiding principles to lend his policies structural coherence, and his abysmal ignorance about most subjects. It doesn't take hurricane-force winds to blow a ship around if that ship has no rudder or anchor. Do you really think it's that difficult to persuade someone on a subject about which they know little or nothing, and can't be bothered to learn? Politics is full of people whose primary job skill is persuasiveness. Donald Trump gets routinely mousetrapped into taking conflicting positions - sometimes in the same conversation - by journalists, for God's sake.

Finally, look at the flip side of Trump's egotistical inability to ever be criticized or challenged on anything without going ballistic: his constant of equating "good person" with "he likes me". Any time another person's name is brought up to Donald Trump, he does one of two things. He either begins to personally denigrate them because they aren't supporters of his, or he reacts with, "Oh, yeah, he's a great guy. We're friends. He loves me. Great guy." This is a man whose massive, fragile conceit has made him vulnerable to flattery and manipulation.

2. Mexico has a policy that violates our Sovereignty constantly on a massive scale, ie encouraging illegal immigration. Any relationship with Mexico based on reality should be worse unless they immediately starting working in good faith to help US resolve this.

I don't deny that Mexico is a problem, or that the response to it should be based in reality. On the contrary, it's one of the reasons I refuse to support Trump. A realistic policy responding to Mexico's behavior is NOT to march in and try to beat them to death with your swinging cod, or to suffocate them with the sheer weight of your testosterone-soaked ego. Trump has already antagonized Mexico and made them defensive and hostile in any dealings with them, particularly if those dealings involve Donald Trump. However much you might think they deserve it, that still doesn't make it smart or productive in the long run.

3. We have a 450 trillion dollar a year trade deficit. He will be the first President in a long time that will be thinking of Trade in the context of advancing American interests. He will have tremendous leverage as the leader of the world's largest market. Considering the horrific policy we have now, the bar to do better or at least not worse, is just about as low as it can be.

I can't imagine what makes you think Donald Trump knows much of anything about international trade, and every time I hear about "trade deficit", I wonder the same thing about the person saying it.

Walter Williams addressed this in a very clear manner in a recent column:

A trade deficit is when people in one country buy more from another country than the other country’s people buy from them. There cannot be a trade deficit in a true economic sense. Let’s examine this.

I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me. That means I have a trade deficit with my grocer. My grocer buys more from his wholesaler than his wholesaler buys from him. But there is really no trade imbalance, whether my grocer is down the street, in Canada or, God forbid, in China.

Here is what happens: When I purchase $100 worth of groceries, my goods account (groceries) rises, but my capital account (money) falls by $100. For my grocer, it is the opposite. His goods account falls by $100, but his capital account rises by $100. Looking at only the goods account, we would see trade deficits, but if we included the capital accounts, we would see a trade balance. That is true whether we are talking about domestic trade or we are talking about foreign trade.

The uninformed buys into the mercantilist creed that trade deficits are bad and trade surpluses are good.

He goes on to note that the 1930s had trade surpluses every year except 1936. Clearly, trade surpluses do not equal prosperity.

International trade operates under the same general principles as domestic trade. When we, as consumers, purchase goods from China and the Chinese do not spend a like amount for goods from us, there is a current account deficit. In 2015, Americans purchased $482 billion worth of goods from China. The Chinese purchased only $116 billion worth of goods from us, producing a current account deficit with China of $366 billion.

Instead of purchasing tangible goods, the Chinese purchase capital goods — such as corporate stocks, bonds and U.S. Treasury debt instruments. The Chinese purchase more capital goods from us than we purchase of the same from them. That means the deficit on our current account is matched by the surplus on our capital account.

This issue is also explored in this paper from the Cato Institute:

Are Trade Deficits Really Bad News?

Do I think Donald Trump knows the full story on trade deficits and trade balances? I have no idea. But to listen to his rhetoric, he either doesn't have a clue about international trade, or he's cynically lying his ass off to manipulate supporters who don't have a clue.

4. Note how quickly he reversed himself on "punishing women" when he was more fully informed on the subject. He is obviously open to constructive criticism and new information.

The question to ask is, why does he NEED to be "constructively criticized" on so many things? Why is he wandering around, shooting his mouth off about issues on which he hasn't spent five minutes thought, or bothered to have anyone else explain to him? Has someone been keeping it a secret from him that these issues come up in Presidential campaigns, not to mention the actual job? That he's going to be asked about them, and might want to have something to say? Do you see Ted Cruz having to walk back some half-assed "Oh, gee, I never thought about it before" comment every week, or more often sometimes? No, you don't, because Ted Cruz came to the test after studying and preparing, not just planning to wing it with his "good brain".

The time to become informed on the subject of abortion, or any current political issue, is BEFORE you campaign to be President, not on the fly.

If the GOP would, instead of validating the attempt to paint Trump and much of the GOP base as bigots and hicks, and challenge the idea that Trump is the worst thing that ever happened, we can turn this panic off and reverse the trend of those numbers quickly.

WHY should the GOP not validate the "attempt to paint Trump as a bigot and hick"? He IS. He's ignorant white trash with money, and HE'S the one painting himself that way. You can't blame other people for simply noticing and commenting on it.

The GOP doesn't owe you OR Trump any effort to try to paper over his foolish capering and misbehavior, nor is there a single reason under the sun for them to want to "turn the panic off" or reverse his trends. He's doing it to himself, and in the process giving everyone who isn't a Trumpette no reason whatsoever to save him, and loads of reasons not to.

1.a.Your assumption that his marriages failed because he was out "swayed" by women targeting him instead of his own motivations is unsupported.

1b A politician "pandering" for votes is not being manipulated, but trying to manipulate others.

1c Trump does NOT get routinely mousetrapped by journalists. He normally manipulates them like a master. His flubbing the question on Abortion was an exception, not the rule.

1d HIs pubic appearance of "going ballistic" is part of his public persona, that recent events show are NOT part of his behind the scene work behavior. He accepted criticism of his flubbing the abortion question and responded appropriately. I also started an interesting thread from Salon, with an interview with Newt Gingrich who met with Trump, with reports that support that.

2. Any dealing with Mexico with American interests in mind, is going to make Mexico antagonistic, hostile and defensive, for they have a policy of advancing their interests at the expense of ours. And they know it, even if most of US do not. Trump is the MOST credible candidate when it comes to reversing that. All the other candidates have a record of being on the wrong side of that issue.

3. The problem with that scenario, is that there are TWO grocers, one American and one Chinese. And the Chinese one is playing hard ball, and the American one is losing his house.

The long term effects of Free Trade are NOT what we were promised. That policy needs reversed.

4. Yes, I do see candidates doing that. Ted Cruz walked back quite a few of his policy positions when Trump hit the scene and made Immigration and Trade the top issues. And that wasn't a flubbed answer that he walked back. Those were long standing policy beliefs.

5. Trump is not a bigot or a Hick. There is nothing racist about his policies. And by embracing the slander the Media is directing at Trump and his large base among the Republican Base, the leadership is doing long term damage to the party.

And as a life long Republican, who voted for moderates when they won primaries fair and square, they do own me. They owe me the same consideration that I gave them as part of our team.

 

[Correll]

The only thing inaccurate about the title of this thread are the words "just about."

Nothing like having your own party leadership agreeing with their enemies that their own base is a bunch of bigots and hicks.

You ever think about the long term impact of that?

The leadership is worried about the long term impact of nominating Trump.

I am not hearing the leadership calling Trump supporters bigots and hicks.

If Trump is winning so much be with a bigoted message as the GOP leadership is agreeing, that is indirectly agreeing with the LIb Myth that the GOP party is the party of White Racism.

They need to be challenging that meme, not embracing it.

They are destroying the party.

Has it occurred to you that the people destroying the GOP in this particular regard are the people supporting Trump with a bigoted message?

Again, why should the GOP feel at all motivated to defend Trump's insane statements, rather than condemning them and distancing themselves from him?

The Conventional Wisdom is that Trump is racist for wanting to enforce the Immigration Laws and deport the illegal immigrants.

Trump and his supporters are the sane ones, and the rest of you are stark raving mad.

The Conventional Wisdom is that despite Muslims regularly killing us in the name of their religion, that Trump is bigoted for wanting to stop importing large numbers of Muslims, of which some of them are certain to be hostile and dangerous and murderous.

Trump and his supporters are the sane ones and the rest of you are stark raving mad.

The GOP leadership, by supporting this madness, to the point of attacking their own front runner and slandering their own members, are the ones destroying the party.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, honey, that IS the rebuttal when your argument is "They're MEAN!!! Waaaaahhhh!"

Worst-case scenario off the top of my head? He hires people in his administration similar to the way he's hired them in his campaign, thinking he can just get his way by running his mouth, and ends up with Executive Branch corruption and incompetence on a scale to rival Ulysses S. Grant. Congress stonewalls his wackadoodle "policy" du jour and he builds and expands on Obama's executive-order monarchy plan, because his ego just assumes he's too smart and wonderful to need that Constitutional check-and-balance crap and he can just bullshit his way through it by running his gums in the media and firing up his Trump zombies to support him. Or even worse, he returns to collaborating with his old buddies, Bill and Hillary, maybe by bribing them with some sort of appointment, and between them, they manage to convince some of the more unscrupulous Congresscritters to cooperate with him, and he actually starts passing some of his "I thought about it for a whole five minutes" policy decisions. Either way, the economy tanks even more than it already has, federal government encroachment expands, and the nation's slide into a disorganized mishmash of societal chaos progresses.

That's just off the top of my head, though. I could think more specifically, but I really don't require those sorts of nightmares on a nice Sunday.

So, worst case scenario, that you are so afraid of is maybe Grid Lock, like we have had before,

or maybe, just maybe, "economy tanks, government expands, status quo on society".

Without any link between those policies and how that happens.

Deporting Illegals is not going to cause that.

Limiting work visas in not going to cause that.

Trying and failing to renegotiate bad trade deals might. But Trump is playing to his experience in negotiating there, and as President of the United States would have tremendous leverage.

As I said, if the GOP leadership starts seriously addressing the hysterical concerns the corrupt media and lying libs have raised, most people could be reassured that those extreme concerns were made up bullshit.

And thus, be open to voting for Trump or Against Hillary.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? I didn't say "gridlock". I said, "executive order overreach by someone with too much ego to accept that anyone has the right to gridlock him".

I'm not really looking to spend my Sunday writing a dissertation on the nightmare of a Donald Trump presidency, but I can answer specific questions.

Part of the problem with predicting a Trump presidency is that he's extremely "malleable" (to quote Jimmy Carter) and easily manipulated, if you know how to go about it. Therefore, what he's going to do is going to depend a lot on who's pushing what and finds the right triggers to flip. Candidates like Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders have guiding principles they operate by, however much you like or hate them and regardless of their reasons for doing so. Donald Trump has never had a guiding principle in his life other than his own ego and aggrandizement, which means his policy is going to be up for grabs to whomever can flatter him the best.

1) I don't see Donald Trump deporting much of anyone who isn't already getting deported. I DO see him antagonizing the hell out of Mexico and further damaging relations with them. Not that I don't think there are serious problems with the state of those relations now, but they ARE our next-door neighbor and an important trading partner, and degrading communications with them through open hostility is not a plan. And I have serious concerns and suspicions about contradictions between his bombast about "southern walls" - which subject I REALLY doubt he has explored in any depth - and his real-life approach of employing illegals, outsourcing work, and associating with other rich people who do the same.

His remarks have already signaled a dangerous fluidity on the subject of work visas, requiring only for someone to approach him in the right way and with the right incentive to throw it open for the ol' "people who do the work Americans won't" excuse.

2) I have serious doubts about his diplomatic skills in regards to negotiating trade deals. Frankly, his business history tells the story of him getting outside the realm of just collecting rent and residuals, pushing grandiose schemes that flop, and leaving investors and creditors holding the bag and sweeping up the rubble. In the case of the United States government, the people are both the investors and the creditors, and we can't afford that crap. I also don't think that his past history of suckering people into loaning him money is going to be as useful in convincing other countries to agree to trade deal stipulations that favor the US. And I think his perception of what favors the US in trade is seriously limited and flawed.

What I see is him needlessly antagonizing trade partners while achieving nothing useful in negotiating, storming and tantrum-throwing and pouting about how it's all their fault for being "mean" to him, and then touching off a trade war with the people he's just pissed off and motivated into fighting. I see him imposing punitive tariffs on imports and taxes on American companies doing business overseas AND foreign companies investing in the US, and bringing the economy to a grinding halt while the average American ends up paying higher prices while having less ability to get good jobs and increase buying power.

3) I further see American social freedoms being further hemmed in, either by whomever pets his ego the best or by Trump himself because someone ran afoul of him. The lack of time he spends thinking about and grasping complex issues is evident in nearly everything he says, but it's utterly appalling on the myriad subjects that have never really touched on his life, and which therefore bore him. It's too easy to envision him carelessly tossing off something like his "punishing women who have abortions" riff simply because someone put five seconds into thinking about a way to phrase the issue to trick him. It apparently isn't very difficult to do.

You should know that none of these views have been formed by anyone "slandering" him or misrepresenting him. They come from his actual words and actions and personality.

1. What gives you the idea that he is easily swayed?

I think I actually said "easily manipulated". Why do I think that? Let's start with the fact that the guy has had three trophy wives, two models and an actress, the two exes of which took him for big bucks despite prenup agreements. Trophy wifing isn't a casual game, particularly when it comes to negotiating that prenup; it's ALL about finding your sucker and manipulating his ego. You think there aren't scads of beautiful women competing? The winner is usually the best manipulator. (And no, Tiny Hands, they don't want you because you're such a stud.)

Then let's move on to his shameless pandering to whomever he's addressing at the moment. You can say, "Oh, that's just politicking", but successful politicians with ideological principles don't flip-flop to get the audience du jour to like them. They find different ways to tailor and deliver the same message. Donald Trump can be persuaded to say and do what people want because his ego can't stand the idea of someone not venerating him, or worse, disagreeing with him or criticizing him.

Let's also consider his utter lack of anything like a set of guiding principles to lend his policies structural coherence, and his abysmal ignorance about most subjects. It doesn't take hurricane-force winds to blow a ship around if that ship has no rudder or anchor. Do you really think it's that difficult to persuade someone on a subject about which they know little or nothing, and can't be bothered to learn? Politics is full of people whose primary job skill is persuasiveness. Donald Trump gets routinely mousetrapped into taking conflicting positions - sometimes in the same conversation - by journalists, for God's sake.

Finally, look at the flip side of Trump's egotistical inability to ever be criticized or challenged on anything without going ballistic: his constant of equating "good person" with "he likes me". Any time another person's name is brought up to Donald Trump, he does one of two things. He either begins to personally denigrate them because they aren't supporters of his, or he reacts with, "Oh, yeah, he's a great guy. We're friends. He loves me. Great guy." This is a man whose massive, fragile conceit has made him vulnerable to flattery and manipulation.

2. Mexico has a policy that violates our Sovereignty constantly on a massive scale, ie encouraging illegal immigration. Any relationship with Mexico based on reality should be worse unless they immediately starting working in good faith to help US resolve this.

I don't deny that Mexico is a problem, or that the response to it should be based in reality. On the contrary, it's one of the reasons I refuse to support Trump. A realistic policy responding to Mexico's behavior is NOT to march in and try to beat them to death with your swinging cod, or to suffocate them with the sheer weight of your testosterone-soaked ego. Trump has already antagonized Mexico and made them defensive and hostile in any dealings with them, particularly if those dealings involve Donald Trump. However much you might think they deserve it, that still doesn't make it smart or productive in the long run.

3. We have a 450 trillion dollar a year trade deficit. He will be the first President in a long time that will be thinking of Trade in the context of advancing American interests. He will have tremendous leverage as the leader of the world's largest market. Considering the horrific policy we have now, the bar to do better or at least not worse, is just about as low as it can be.

I can't imagine what makes you think Donald Trump knows much of anything about international trade, and every time I hear about "trade deficit", I wonder the same thing about the person saying it.

Walter Williams addressed this in a very clear manner in a recent column:

A trade deficit is when people in one country buy more from another country than the other country’s people buy from them. There cannot be a trade deficit in a true economic sense. Let’s examine this.

I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me. That means I have a trade deficit with my grocer. My grocer buys more from his wholesaler than his wholesaler buys from him. But there is really no trade imbalance, whether my grocer is down the street, in Canada or, God forbid, in China.

Here is what happens: When I purchase $100 worth of groceries, my goods account (groceries) rises, but my capital account (money) falls by $100. For my grocer, it is the opposite. His goods account falls by $100, but his capital account rises by $100. Looking at only the goods account, we would see trade deficits, but if we included the capital accounts, we would see a trade balance. That is true whether we are talking about domestic trade or we are talking about foreign trade.

The uninformed buys into the mercantilist creed that trade deficits are bad and trade surpluses are good.

He goes on to note that the 1930s had trade surpluses every year except 1936. Clearly, trade surpluses do not equal prosperity.

International trade operates under the same general principles as domestic trade. When we, as consumers, purchase goods from China and the Chinese do not spend a like amount for goods from us, there is a current account deficit. In 2015, Americans purchased $482 billion worth of goods from China. The Chinese purchased only $116 billion worth of goods from us, producing a current account deficit with China of $366 billion.

Instead of purchasing tangible goods, the Chinese purchase capital goods — such as corporate stocks, bonds and U.S. Treasury debt instruments. The Chinese purchase more capital goods from us than we purchase of the same from them. That means the deficit on our current account is matched by the surplus on our capital account.

This issue is also explored in this paper from the Cato Institute:

Are Trade Deficits Really Bad News?

Do I think Donald Trump knows the full story on trade deficits and trade balances? I have no idea. But to listen to his rhetoric, he either doesn't have a clue about international trade, or he's cynically lying his ass off to manipulate supporters who don't have a clue.

4. Note how quickly he reversed himself on "punishing women" when he was more fully informed on the subject. He is obviously open to constructive criticism and new information.

The question to ask is, why does he NEED to be "constructively criticized" on so many things? Why is he wandering around, shooting his mouth off about issues on which he hasn't spent five minutes thought, or bothered to have anyone else explain to him? Has someone been keeping it a secret from him that these issues come up in Presidential campaigns, not to mention the actual job? That he's going to be asked about them, and might want to have something to say? Do you see Ted Cruz having to walk back some half-assed "Oh, gee, I never thought about it before" comment every week, or more often sometimes? No, you don't, because Ted Cruz came to the test after studying and preparing, not just planning to wing it with his "good brain".

The time to become informed on the subject of abortion, or any current political issue, is BEFORE you campaign to be President, not on the fly.

If the GOP would, instead of validating the attempt to paint Trump and much of the GOP base as bigots and hicks, and challenge the idea that Trump is the worst thing that ever happened, we can turn this panic off and reverse the trend of those numbers quickly.

WHY should the GOP not validate the "attempt to paint Trump as a bigot and hick"? He IS. He's ignorant white trash with money, and HE'S the one painting himself that way. You can't blame other people for simply noticing and commenting on it.

The GOP doesn't owe you OR Trump any effort to try to paper over his foolish capering and misbehavior, nor is there a single reason under the sun for them to want to "turn the panic off" or reverse his trends. He's doing it to himself, and in the process giving everyone who isn't a Trumpette no reason whatsoever to save him, and loads of reasons not to.

1.a.Your assumption that his marriages failed because he was out "swayed" by women targeting him instead of his own motivations is unsupported.

I didn't say his marriages failed because he was manipulated. I said he got married because they manipulated him. And they got some pretty favorable prenup deals the same way.

1b A politician "pandering" for votes is not being manipulated, but trying to manipulate others.

Like I said, successful politicians don't pander the way Trump does. They keep their message, and tailor it to their audience. Trump, on the other hand, changes his message outright to gain approval.

1c Trump does NOT get routinely mousetrapped by journalists. He normally manipulates them like a master. His flubbing the question on Abortion was an exception, not the rule.

Acting outrageous to gain media attention is not "master manipulation". Any half-assed protester, criminal, or terrorist can figure that one out. May I submit for your edification Occupy Wallstreet, Black Lives Matter, the Unabomber, any gangbanger doing a drive-by in LA on any given day?

Truth is, the media gets him to make a fool of himself on a routine basis. He just doesn't always care.

1d HIs pubic appearance of "going ballistic" is part of his public persona, that recent events show are NOT part of his behind the scene work behavior. He accepted criticism of his flubbing the abortion question and responded appropriately. I also started an interesting thread from Salon, with an interview with Newt Gingrich who met with Trump, with reports that support that.

Even if you were correct, which I highly doubt, is it supposed to be a comfort to me that a man who wants to be President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, regularly behaves like a tantrum-throwing buffoon on purpose because he thinks it looks good?

I'm also not all that reassured by Newt Gingrich, of all people, on appropriate behavior for a political candidate.

And this still doesn't address the issues of 1) "the abortion question" is far from the only thing he's ever said that was egregious, and 2) WHY does he need to be "constructively criticized" so damned often, whether he accepts it or not? Why does he not already know and prepare for the issues he's going to get questioned about? Why are they a surprise to him and his campaign staff?

2. Any dealing with Mexico with American interests in mind, is going to make Mexico antagonistic, hostile and defensive, for they have a policy of advancing their interests at the expense of ours. And they know it, even if most of US do not. Trump is the MOST credible candidate when it comes to reversing that. All the other candidates have a record of being on the wrong side of that issue.

No, that's not true. All countries have a policy of advancing their own interests, but it's not necessarily true that it's at the expense of the interests of others', unless it has to be, or that they are automatically hostile and defensive simply because we advance our own interests. This isn't a schoolyard, and we're not talking about children here.

Trump is not even remotely credible on the subject, unless one does not, in fact, know much of anything about international diplomacy in general, or Mexican-American relations in specific. He just spouts nationalist, jingoistic pap that sounds macho, and a bunch of angry bohunks lap it up because it resonates with memories of their last bar fight.

And yes, I do sound condescending and dismissive, but no more so than Donald Trump does, and the difference is that I'M not running for President.

3. The problem with that scenario, is that there are TWO grocers, one American and one Chinese. And the Chinese one is playing hard ball, and the American one is losing his house.

The long term effects of Free Trade are NOT what we were promised. That policy needs reversed.

Well, thank you for that deep, insightful analysis of trade deficits and the specific issues therein. I am staggered by your brilliance and the sheer weight of facts and information that you've dropped on me.

If this sort of derivative sloganeering is what I'm going to get in return for my attempts to address your questions thoughtfully and specifically, the way you requested, then say so now, and I'll go back to talking about Donny Boy's $5 spray tan and roadkill comb-over. I don't HAVE to spend time and effort composing long explanatory posts for you. I'm doing it as a courtesy because you asked me to, and I expect the same in return.

4. Yes, I do see candidates doing that. Ted Cruz walked back quite a few of his policy positions when Trump hit the scene and made Immigration and Trade the top issues. And that wasn't a flubbed answer that he walked back. Those were long standing policy beliefs.

Name them, and cite your sources.

5. Trump is not a bigot or a Hick. There is nothing racist about his policies. And by embracing the slander the Media is directing at Trump and his large base among the Republican Base, the leadership is doing long term damage to the party.

Trump is not a bigot in the sense that David Duke is, but I'm pretty sure that's mostly because he doesn't really think of other people as real to a great enough extent to hate them. He seems to just generally view the rest of the world with a vague contempt because they're not him. His statements are, however, quite offensive and even over the line into bigoted.

And as a life long Republican, who voted for moderates when they won primaries fair and square, they do own me. They owe me the same consideration that I gave them as part of our team.

No, the Republican Party doesn't owe you, personally, a damned thing when you're weighed against all the OTHER people who also voted for their candidates previously. That's the part you keep forgetting because you've listened to Trump for so long that his egocentrism has rubbed off on you: YOU are not that important, individually. You're just one face in a crowd of millions, and the GOP has to balance the desires of ALL its voters and potential voters, not just you.

And they don't owe it to Donald Trump to piss on him if he was on fire, if it required them to walk all the way across the street to do it.

 

[jillian]

Well to be fair i dont know presidential history enough to know how hated prior candidates were. Trump is in the shitter to be sure tho

they've been pretty clear that no one has ever had his negatives since they've been measuring those things.

most of the so-called negatives are creations of the biased media

No, most of the negatives are creations of the media simply letting Trump talk and reporting the results.

if anything media has gone too easy on him because they were afraid he'd take his ball and start a third party.

Maybe. Maybe he's just too much fun and too good for ratings without them needing to massage the story at all.

there is that. but they also set him in the middle of the debate stage and treated him like the presumptive nominee from day one... when all he was ... was a reality show host.