It's true.
Pretty much every black republican (like one of the 5 total) is trotted out on camera to downplay any race issue that happens against the republican party.
Donald Trump
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
It's true.
Pretty much every black republican (like one of the 5 total) is trotted out on camera to downplay any race issue that happens against the republican party.
I do not think there was a winner but several candidates had a good night.
News reports frequently mention Marco Rubio from the prime time debate and Carly Fiorina from the "Happy Hour" debate. They both seemed to have really impressed.
Most frequent mentions for having a bad night are Bush, Trump and Paul.
News reports frequently mention Marco Rubio from the prime time debate and Carly Fiorina from the "Happy Hour" debate. They both seemed to have really impressed.
Most frequent mentions for having a bad night are Bush, Trump and Paul.
I don't think Jeb was bad, just not good. The other two were bad, imo.
That theory is certainly making the rounds.
I have spoken with several liberals that believe this as well and I am wondering it myself.
So my random musings from this thread about the debate and Trump:
1) It's no shock this debate was extremely well watched. I'm somewhat leftist (at least compared to this board) and I'm completely fascinated by the clown car that is the GOP field right now. My mother and sister who are quite to the left of me made a point to watch it too. Who doesn't love a good trainwreck.
2) It's amazing to see how far to the right the candidates will go to try to get the nomination, only to veer back to the center. The Dems do this to an extent to the left as well, but not like the right does it (I'll admit my bias could be clouding that observation). And all this stuff ends up crushing the GOP candidate in the general election as they try to distance themselves from their comments. I even get the strategy behind it, I'm just amazed it's the way it has to be.
3) Trump is a massive thin skinned jackass. To the right that criticizes Obama for having an enemies list, if (god forbid) Trump becomes President he'll have the biggest enemies list of all time, crushing both Obama and Nixon and everyone else whose held the office. The attack on Megyn Kelley was not just petty, it was strategically bad. He's trying to make enemies in Fox News? As a Republican that's insanity.
4) While I probably disagree with Ben Carson on much, he reminds me of a kindly uncle or grandpa who while I may disagree with him on political issues, I still respect the hell out of him (and in the case of my relatives, love him to death). I'd never vote for him as he's too socially conservative for my tastes, but he's the most likeable guy the GOP has.
5) Chris Christie is the total opposite (like an uncle who I pray misses Thanksgivings and family reunions so I don't have to see him). While I think he has no chance in hell of getting the nomination, if he did he would be the only candidate the GOP rolls out who I would actually go door to door campaigning against. I cannot emphasize how much I loathe that piece of crap. He's everything wrong about the GOP (social conservative) and nothing right (doesn't respect states rights or the bill or rights, at least when those issues go against his philosophy) about it. In general if a person has been a prosecutor for a living I want them nowhere near politics.
6) Rand Paul is probably the only guy up there I'd vote for, even though he has quite a few wingnut tendencies I don't like. I doubt he wins though. If it's Hillary against the run of the mill GOP candidate (like Jeb or Scott Walker) I'm probably voting for a 3rd Party candidate this year. If it's Hillary against a Trump or Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee....damn, I may have to hold my nose and vote for her.
7) If Trump really is a plant by Hillary to discredit the GOP, it's sure working. And it relies on the GOP base being dumb enough to support him, which they are doing so at the moment. Not a good sign for their voter base in general.
1) It's no shock this debate was extremely well watched. I'm somewhat leftist (at least compared to this board) and I'm completely fascinated by the clown car that is the GOP field right now. My mother and sister who are quite to the left of me made a point to watch it too. Who doesn't love a good trainwreck.
2) It's amazing to see how far to the right the candidates will go to try to get the nomination, only to veer back to the center. The Dems do this to an extent to the left as well, but not like the right does it (I'll admit my bias could be clouding that observation). And all this stuff ends up crushing the GOP candidate in the general election as they try to distance themselves from their comments. I even get the strategy behind it, I'm just amazed it's the way it has to be.
3) Trump is a massive thin skinned jackass. To the right that criticizes Obama for having an enemies list, if (god forbid) Trump becomes President he'll have the biggest enemies list of all time, crushing both Obama and Nixon and everyone else whose held the office. The attack on Megyn Kelley was not just petty, it was strategically bad. He's trying to make enemies in Fox News? As a Republican that's insanity.
4) While I probably disagree with Ben Carson on much, he reminds me of a kindly uncle or grandpa who while I may disagree with him on political issues, I still respect the hell out of him (and in the case of my relatives, love him to death). I'd never vote for him as he's too socially conservative for my tastes, but he's the most likeable guy the GOP has.
5) Chris Christie is the total opposite (like an uncle who I pray misses Thanksgivings and family reunions so I don't have to see him). While I think he has no chance in hell of getting the nomination, if he did he would be the only candidate the GOP rolls out who I would actually go door to door campaigning against. I cannot emphasize how much I loathe that piece of crap. He's everything wrong about the GOP (social conservative) and nothing right (doesn't respect states rights or the bill or rights, at least when those issues go against his philosophy) about it. In general if a person has been a prosecutor for a living I want them nowhere near politics.
6) Rand Paul is probably the only guy up there I'd vote for, even though he has quite a few wingnut tendencies I don't like. I doubt he wins though. If it's Hillary against the run of the mill GOP candidate (like Jeb or Scott Walker) I'm probably voting for a 3rd Party candidate this year. If it's Hillary against a Trump or Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee....damn, I may have to hold my nose and vote for her.
7) If Trump really is a plant by Hillary to discredit the GOP, it's sure working. And it relies on the GOP base being dumb enough to support him, which they are doing so at the moment. Not a good sign for their voter base in general.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It's very early. Think back to last time around. Wasn't the 999 dude and Gingrich the frontrunners at this point last election cylce? 99% of people were paying very little attention until that first debate. Most people still haven't taken much of a look at the candidates. I think republicans will like Fiorina as they get to hear her more. I also think they will realize that nominating a woman will put their party at the center of an historic campaign instead of watching from the sidelines.
I think she would kill Hilary in the general election. Every other republican is just as polarizing as Hilary, if not more so.(sorry Jeb, that's W's fault) Fiorina may lose the Iowa caucuses but she will win New Hampshire. She will go on to take the big more liberal(even within the republican party) states. California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. I'll be surprised if she doesn't win the nomination, tbh.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlEz_PLFBIg
What I find funniest about Trump and his supporters is that they seem to think we don't like him because he's willing to tell it like it is. As if he's exposing the hard truths that we don't dare talk about in our PC world.
Fact is that Trump continues to tell it like it isn't. The guy says what's on his mind and it's clear that he isn't very capable of complex thought, or of understanding facts and figures. He doesn't just shoot from the hip, he's down right sloppy.
Listening to him is like getting cornered into a political debate with people who grew up sniffing gasoline and ****ing their sister.
Fact is that Trump continues to tell it like it isn't. The guy says what's on his mind and it's clear that he isn't very capable of complex thought, or of understanding facts and figures. He doesn't just shoot from the hip, he's down right sloppy.
Listening to him is like getting cornered into a political debate with people who grew up sniffing gasoline and ****ing their sister.
Dude, you can have your opinion but please don't go into personal attacks on PKM.
Just noticed this thread. I'll go ahead and be *that* guy and liven up the discussion...
So perhaps you've noticed that during the past 9 Presidencies (36 years) dating back to 1980, either a Bush or Clinton has been in the White House for 7 of those terms, and here we have another Bush and another Clinton heading for the primaries this year. If a Bush or Clinton gets elected this time around, that score will be run up to 8 out of 10 terms. Think about that for a minute. A trend going back more than a generation with semi-competent Bushes or Clintons in the highest office, with the only exception being Obama, whom I won't bother to comment on.
My point is not to rag on past Presidents or potential candidates going forward, but to point out the obvious fact that clearly there are factors aside from political viability, money, competence, political experience, etc. dictating who ultimately becomes President. If you're willing to dig a little bit, you might find that the common thread among them a direct connection to and endorsement from the U.S. covert intelligence community. Certain candidates are cleared to advance, and others are blocked. What happens in the media is just theater, and mediocre theater at that.
Carry on then, and have a nice day...
So perhaps you've noticed that during the past 9 Presidencies (36 years) dating back to 1980, either a Bush or Clinton has been in the White House for 7 of those terms, and here we have another Bush and another Clinton heading for the primaries this year. If a Bush or Clinton gets elected this time around, that score will be run up to 8 out of 10 terms. Think about that for a minute. A trend going back more than a generation with semi-competent Bushes or Clintons in the highest office, with the only exception being Obama, whom I won't bother to comment on.
My point is not to rag on past Presidents or potential candidates going forward, but to point out the obvious fact that clearly there are factors aside from political viability, money, competence, political experience, etc. dictating who ultimately becomes President. If you're willing to dig a little bit, you might find that the common thread among them a direct connection to and endorsement from the U.S. covert intelligence community. Certain candidates are cleared to advance, and others are blocked. What happens in the media is just theater, and mediocre theater at that.
Carry on then, and have a nice day...
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
You guys see this?
https://www.wired.com/2015/08/googles-search-algorithm-steal-presidency/
^^^^^ Accidentally my ***. I've heard people talking about this for years, but it's interesting to see #'s attached to it. I'd like to see a little more of the study they are going off of, but unfortunately the study link provided in the article is password protected:
https://www.eurekalert.org/jrnls/pnas/1419828112.full.pdf
https://www.wired.com/2015/08/googles-search-algorithm-steal-presidency/
^^^^^ Accidentally my ***. I've heard people talking about this for years, but it's interesting to see #'s attached to it. I'd like to see a little more of the study they are going off of, but unfortunately the study link provided in the article is password protected:
https://www.eurekalert.org/jrnls/pnas/1419828112.full.pdf
Well, Trump definitely has "liberal" views on some subjects, like single-payer health care. He's all for it, just thinks he's the one who manage it best.
It's hard to really be a conservative and own your own Strip hotel, afterall. He's what I call the junk bond type of businessman. He wins by using the system and the lawyers more than entrepreneurship. He's definitely muddying the water on the R side, and it will benefit the Clintons, and he's on record for doing payola business with the Clintons.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
The problem with the Clinton/Trump thing is that the Clintons are already so screwed up. Take the Bill Clinton phone call pre-Trump run. Is there anybody out there at this point that doesn't believe the continued Clinton marriage is just a public show? Why would I believe Trump talked to Bill Clinton about how to help his wife out any more than I would that Clinton gave him pointers on how to kick her ***? How to properly get under her skin? If it's neither of those things, then he was talking to an old pal that had been there, done that presidential run thing before. Makes perfect sense why they would've talked.
The key to the Clinton/Trump collusion theory is....how much is Donald Trump really worth? He puts out 92 pages of financial related info and nobody still knows. Wild goose chase. He says 10 billion, but he could be the emperor with no clothes for all we know. If that's the case, I'm more interested. But there's still a problem....Trump knows all those Wall Street guys that run the world already. Carl friggin' Ichan tweeted the other day that he would accept Trumps offer to be treasury secretary. Even if he is joking......that's Trumps crowd. He doesn't need the Clintons for business purposes. It seems like a lot of work on Trump's end....unless the Clintons would find ways after Hillary's electon to opening up gambling streams in whatever areas Trump wanted or something. Chicago for instance is one place that people have seemed to want to bring gambling into for years.
The key to the Clinton/Trump collusion theory is....how much is Donald Trump really worth? He puts out 92 pages of financial related info and nobody still knows. Wild goose chase. He says 10 billion, but he could be the emperor with no clothes for all we know. If that's the case, I'm more interested. But there's still a problem....Trump knows all those Wall Street guys that run the world already. Carl friggin' Ichan tweeted the other day that he would accept Trumps offer to be treasury secretary. Even if he is joking......that's Trumps crowd. He doesn't need the Clintons for business purposes. It seems like a lot of work on Trump's end....unless the Clintons would find ways after Hillary's electon to opening up gambling streams in whatever areas Trump wanted or something. Chicago for instance is one place that people have seemed to want to bring gambling into for years.
Last edited:
Miggs
Well-Known Member
bjwsan
Well-Known Member
Comrade,
Interesting post... with a Captain America avatar...
Last week in Munich... there were 7 out of 7 days of sunshine...
just makes ya wonder...
bjwsan
Well-Known Member
The explanation of the Trump/Clinton thing, can be summed up in 3 words...
Ego, ego, ego!
Maybe it would take 4 words... but anyway
w/ Trump it's ALL about a very BIG EGO...
His financial worth has always been overstated, but that's a key part of his game...
I'm so smart, so good, you want to be working w/ me
Now, how this relates to the political arena... is a double edged sword...
He may be able to pull together TOP financial teams...
He may decide to f'up this election, cuz he isn't being treated 'nice'...
He clearly has tapped into a very dissatisfied electorate...
but... we really have no idea what he thinks, or wants or would do...
other than...
He's really, really smart, and knows how to get things done...
and that... may or may not be true... I have my doubts... but I'm not opposed to blowing things up... the way they currently are now...
Obama was said to be very, very smart... and in some ways, I do believe he is one of the smartest political operatives we've had in the WH in decades... not very smart at improving the economy or following the constitution... but that hasn't been his game or interest... so he's very smart at getting done what he wants to do. It's just that... I don't believe the USofA electorate is really in agreement with what 'he wants to do'... but we're stuck with it...
With Trump... he's making it up as he goes along... and maybe we'll find out what he really wants to do, later...