Trump Triumphant
Donald Trump just secured his 1,237th delegate to the Republican National Convention. He will thus be the party's nominee -- no ifs, ands, or buts. No pipe dream of a floor fight is going to save the party from nominating Trump. It's official.
A year ago, that would have been an extraordinarily fantastical paragraph to type. Six months ago, it still would have been considered outrageously improbable by most inside-the-Beltway pundits (from left or right). A month ago, the mainstream media was still howling with disbelief (and laughter) when a Trump spokesman predicted he'd get 1,400 delegates to the convention -- a figure that now looks downright possible. Now, Donald Trump is unquestionably the leader of the Republican Party. At this point, Trump securing the nomination is even kind of a footnote, since after Ted Cruz and John Kasich dropped out, Trump has been the only GOP candidate even left running. He'd already locked up the title of "presumptive nominee," so today's announcement is little more than confirmation of what has been obvious for weeks now.
No matter the outcome in November, the 2016 presidential election is already one for the history books. Students of political science will doubtlessly be examining this campaign under a microscope for decades to come. Every so often a political figure comes along who completely rewrites the rules, and for this generation it certainly looks like Donald Trump will be remembered for doing so (even if he loses the general election).
It's hard to even accurately identify all the rules Trump has so far jettisoned, in fact. In a single sentence, the new reality Trump has created might be summed up as: "Anyone can run for president, if you do it right."
Doing it right begins with having lots of your own money to spend. That's a good place to start breaking things down. In actual fact, this was proven back in the 1990s, by H. Ross Perot, a Texas billionaire who not only launched a third-party bid for the White House (twice), but actually won one of every five votes cast, in his best showing. Perot didn't have to listen to donors pulling his strings and was free to be as wacky and off-the-cuff as he felt like. Sound familiar? Trump has also been free to say and do whatever pops into his head, the only difference being that he took over the machinery of an existing party rather than going to the trouble of setting up one of his own. And -- the key point -- it worked. If Perot had won the Republican nomination, it's a pretty sure bet he'd have gotten a lot more votes than he wound up with, that's for sure. He might not have beaten Bill Clinton, but at the very least he would have gotten a lot closer. Billionaires who contemplate presidential runs (Michael Bloomberg, for instance) are probably taking note of Trump's success, especially when it comes to the question of attempting a third-party run versus dominating an existing political party.
Money aside, though, Trump shows that the American myth of "anyone can grow up to be president" is at least partially still true today. Trump knows virtually nothing about public policy, foreign policy, tax policy, or any other political touchstone. It didn't matter. The Republicans have only themselves to blame for this predicament -- after all, if Sarah Palin was an acceptable choice for vice president, then it certainly sets the stage for Donald Trump to be a serious presidential candidate. You don't have to have been born in a log cabin, you don't have to authentically be a common man -- you just have to talk like a common man. That's it. That's the authenticity of Trump (and Palin, for that matter) that the members of the elite media still just don't quite "get." Mitt Romney attempted to sound like a normal guy repeatedly, and the results were downright painful to listen to. Trump, on the other hand, has more money than Mitt, but Trump sounds exactly like the guy drinking a beer down the bar from you, bitching about how he'd run the world if he ever got the chance. And Trump proved that that was enough -- to get the Republican nomination, at any rate.
The next rule of politics Trump rewrote: an outsized personality and ego works better than even a mountain of cash. Trump didn't spend all that much money securing the nomination. He spent a fraction of what Jeb Bush spent, just for comparison. Sometimes money can't buy an election -- a fact which critics of the Citizen United decision often miss. Trump got an astounding amount of free media exposure, just by being Donald Trump on a daily basis. But ego and shenanigans aside, there's a subtle point here that many also miss -- part of the reason Trump got so much free media time because he was available. He'd phone in to any cable news show, drop a few bombshell statements, and then sit back and let the media do his work for him. When other stations called him up to verify the bombshells, he'd be glad to do an on-air interview with them, too. He either doubled down on his outrageousness, or he'd fill the air with so many conflicting positions that nobody knew what he actually thought. And it worked -- every single time. Partly, this was because he was so entertaining. He knows how to make news, and by doing so he absolutely dominated the media narrative from beginning to end. The other Republican candidates were left with the scraps of: "So what do you think about what Trump just said?" -- which left them floundering and reactionary, rather than being in any way successful in getting their own message out. Trump wasn't ever handled by campaign consultants, who would doubtlessly have limited his access to the media. Instead, Trump gave so much access that nobody else could even get a word in edgewise. By doing so, he saved a mountain of cash, while the other candidates couldn't even make a dent in him by spending far more.
The biggest sea changes in American presidential campaigns Trump made were rewriting the rules within the Republican Party, as he cruised to the nomination. Trump proved that having a pure and orthodox conservative ideology was completely irrelevant. This was perhaps the most shocking thing of all, for the party's establishment (who really did believe that most people wanted to see Social Security benefits cut, for instance). Some, such as Paul Ryan, are still in shock that this deeply-held belief that the Republican base cares about such things just is not true anymore (if it ever was).
The list of things Trump has proven are irrelevant to capturing the Republican nomination is a long one, in fact. Endorsements are irrelevant, for instance. Almost nobody jumped on board the Trump train until he had won so many primaries that it became obvious he had the best chance to win the nomination. Virtually every prominent Republican at both the state and national level refused to have anything to do with Trump, throughout the contentiousness of the early primaries. When it became obvious that only one man even stood a chance of stopping Trump, even getting behind a candidate they hated with a passion didn't do much good for Ted Cruz. Republicans have been priming this pump for years, though, so it shouldn't really come as much of a surprise. Being "anti-Washington" or "anti-elite" or "anti-establishment" fits in perfectly with the story Republicans have been telling the voters for decades, now. So when Trump disdained the entire Republican Party establishment, it wasn't all that big a shift in how other Republicans have run in the past (remember the "maverick" John McCain, for instance?).
Tax forms are irrelevant -- even when a large portion of your own persona is how rich you are. Trump has shown that it is indeed possible for a candidate to win a Republican nomination without showing his tax returns. This peeves Mitt Romney no end, but that's kind of a karmic joke, since Romney only very reluctantly showed summaries (not the whole forms, mind you) of only two years of taxes, when he ran. Trump is only fulfilling the path Romney himself pioneered.
Facts are irrelevant, at least in Republican primaries. Trump lies so often it's barely even news any more. Even reality is somewhat irrelevant to Trump, as he feels extraordinarily comfortable in the world of conspiracy theory. This is where he made his first big political splash, as a matter of fact, when he became the biggest "birther" in the country, demanding to see President Obama's birth certificate (and then disbelieving it after it was made public). The Republican Party, as a whole, refused to denounce this trip down the rabbit hole. They may not all have actively encouraged birtherism, but there were fully content to lie back and reap the political rewards. Trump now won't talk about Obama's birth certificate, but he shows no reluctance to talk about any number of other conspiracy theories. Indeed, his whole campaign is premised on "They're out to get you!" in many ways.
There's a real worry growing among Democrats that Hillary Clinton may not be up to effectively dealing with Donald Trump's bluster. This is no real knock against Clinton, because it's hard to see how anyone has a successful plan for taking on the Trump whirlwind. How do you nail Jell-O to the wall? How do you pin down a man who contradicts himself within the same sentence, at times? The vaunted Clinton machine is cranking up and will no doubt be running at full steam for the general election, but a steam-based machine may not work all that well against Trump's jumbo jet of a campaign. So far, Clinton has been fairly conventional in her campaign strategy, but running against Trump is going to be anything but conventional. Will Trump be rewriting the general election rules as easily as he rewrote the Republican playbook? If so, how will Hillary react?
This is no longer some sort of hypothetical situation. Donald Trump has locked down the Republican nomination, just like he always said he would. We're going to have a Trump convention in Cleveland, and who knows what that will look like? Republican voters are lining up behind Trump, finding solidarity on their hatred of Hillary Clinton (even those who backed other candidates in the primaries). Republican officeholders are mostly also getting on board the Trump train. The primary season won't officially be over for a couple of weeks, but the Republican race is done. Trump is now triumphant. And he shows no signs of suddenly changing any of his ways, so the general election campaign is going to be far different than anything any of us has seen in our lifetimes. The rules are being rewritten as we watch. In other words: hang on, it's going to be a wild ride. That much, at least, is certain.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Trump's winning on the Republican side is a reflection both of his media skills AND the utter horribleness of the other candidates topped by the fact the Repubs have assiduously fed and watered a base with so much dishonesty, disrespect in every direction, ...ism of every type and misdirected resentment that they lap up Trump's buillshit and ask for more. Trump and his followers are mirror reflections, and the fact that Trump won on the right is an indictment of the Republican Party on every level.
On the left, people responding to the same sets of circumstances in the country, with minorities experiencing far worse conditions year in and year out, turn to very different people to try to make things better.
I don't believe Trump will prevail. I can't wait for this primary to conclude so we can get on with this showdown.
I woke up the other day and realized what a total bag of air Trump is. I wish I could debate him.
I don't believe it's possible to debate someone who resorts to calling people names. Hillary is going to have to avoid stooping to Donald's level.
"We're going to have a Trump convention in Cleveland, and who knows what that will look like?"
A white rabbit hole? No, seriously. It's gonna look like Liberace meets WWE at a lemming stampede.
Facts are irrelevant, at least in Republican primaries. Trump lies so often it's barely even news any more.
Ahem..
Not just in the Republican primaries..
{{{cough}}} IG Report That Proves Clinton Lied{{{cough}}} {{cough}}
They may not all have actively encouraged birtherism, but there were fully content to lie back and reap the political rewards.
"Birthism" was a construct of Clan Clinton in 2008... Credit where credit is due.. :D
How do you nail Jell-O to the wall?
Very very carefully... :D
The vaunted Clinton machine is cranking up and will no doubt be running at full steam for the general election, but a steam-based machine may not work all that well against Trump's jumbo jet of a campaign.
Excellent metaphor, CW!!!
Truly excellent...
Will Trump be rewriting the general election rules as easily as he rewrote the Republican playbook?
Why yes... Yes he will...
If so, how will Hillary react?
Poorly
The rules are being rewritten as we watch. In other words: hang on, it's going to be a wild ride. That much, at least, is certain.
yep.. yep.. yep... :D
Michale
Karen,
I don't believe it's possible to debate someone who resorts to calling people names. Hillary is going to have to avoid stooping to Donald's level.
And therein lies Hillary's dilemma..
She is going to make the same mistake that the GOP candidates made..
She is going to ignore Trump and cede the battlefield to Trump...
And by the time she realizes that TRUMP is driving the train, it will be too late..
JUST like the other GOP Candidates did...
Ignore Trump?? Trump wins....
It's that simple..
Oh... and...
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
Michale
Hillary just DOESN'T know how to campaign against Trump...
This latest issue with the Trump/Sanders California Debate is a perfect example...
Hillary thought she would be cutesy and deny Sanders a California debate..
Trump saw an opportunity and took it..
"You took it!!! And broke a major rule of engagement! Then you broke another one with that circus stunt fly-by."
-Viper, TOP GUN
:D
And NOW....
But it’s once again time for us to bow in homage to his political skill as well as his good luck. The possibility of a debate between Trump and Bernie Sanders that started with a challenge on the “Jimmy Kimmel Show” and which ought to be the top political story of the day – even on the day that he formally clinched the nomination by getting past the 1,237 delegate mark — isn’t just yet another example of the Donald winning a news cycle. It’s an example of how he is cleverly undermining his already floundering general election opponent Hillary Clinton.
Only a few weeks ago, this looked like a general election matchup that Hillary Clinton couldn’t lose. But her ethical problems and inability to put away Sanders has crippled her far more than her camp or even many of her opponents thought possible just at the moment when Trump started to gain some momentum by consolidating GOP support behind him.
Demography in the form of female and minority voting blocks that Trump has alienated and the Electoral College’s tilt to the Democrats are still factors in Hillary’s favor. But Democrats need to come to grips with the fact that, while their candidate may be more knowledgeable about policy than Trump, she is hopelessly outmatched in terms of political skill and it’s unlikely that this will be the last time Trump shows he can run rings around her. That’s why the recent shift of the polls in Trump’s favor may not be misleading. This election may be far more of a problem for Democrats than anyone on either side of the aisle could have imagined.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/trump-beats-clinton-with-sanders-debate/
This perfectly illustrates Hillary's problem.. She is fighting a conventional stone age war with stone knives and bear skins while Trump is prosecuting a WOLF-359 battle with starships...
Hillary is toast....
"AND THE QUARTERBACK IS TOAST!!!"
-Theo, DIE HARD
Michale
Apologies for the excessive BOLD. I said I would try to get away from that, but the point is just to valuable..
I am also constrained to point out that Trump's masterful stroke of making this debate to benefit women's health programs was inspired..
I mean, picture the scene...
Trump and Sanders on stage, arm in arm singing and laughing.. Above the stage is a YUUUGEEE BANNER that says, "BENEFIT PARTY FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH PROGRAMS"...
And, outside in the pouring rain on tiptoes trying to peer thru the window is a cold and bleak Hillary Clinton muttering incoherently...
I mean, com'on!! If that doesn't paint a mental picture that damns Hillary to Crowley for all eternity, NOTHING will... :D
If there is a person who believes that Hillary is not completely and stupendously out-classed campaign-wise.....
Well, that person must be on Mars or in some deep dark dank cave somewhere...
Michale
Trump and Sanders on stage, arm in arm singing and laughing.. Above the stage is a YUUUGEEE BANNER that says, "BENEFIT PARTY FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH PROGRAMS"...
And, outside in the pouring rain on tiptoes trying to peer thru the window is a cold and bleak Hillary Clinton muttering incoherently...
If there are any accomplished artists out there, I would pay good money to have that scene rendered... :D
Michale..
CWCunningham???
Are you still around??? :D
Michale
Michale,
Not stooping to Trump's level does not mean ignoring him or ceding the battlefield.
But, you know that.
So, Michale, will you be voting for Trump in the General Election?
Do you have to ask, DOBL?
"He spent a fraction of what Jeb Bush spent."
I'm nor sure spent is the right word. Jeb basically shoveled a lot of money into deep pits.* Well, to be strictly accurate, Jeb didn't do any of the manual labor, he hired Minions. I mean the little yellow fellows with the goggles and blue work pants...who were milling about yelling Bee-Do Bee-Do Bee-Do (FIRE!) by about February of this year.
If there is a moral to this tale, it is "listen to your mom."
* This was JEB's version of his father, HW Bush, sending notes to friends and retainers. It was about as useful as Dubya cutting brush.
It's gonna look like Liberace meets WWE at a lemming stampede.
You win the Internet!
Yes, Liz, I do have to ask. Trolling the poor old bleeding-heart libbos like me is one thing; performing the only act open to all American citizens that can affect history is another.
My question to Michale is: is she just mucking about, or is she a serious person? The only way she will get to be considered serious by me is to vote for Hillary.
It's just occurred to me: she may be in fact a he! She may not even be a US Citizen!
(Michale, not Hillary)
@neilm: Liberace for President? It might have worked. Better than Herr von Drumpf, anyway.
Michale is a he, DOBL. Glad to clear that up for you. :)
DOBL,
Here's a question for you: How does not voting for Hillary make a person non-serious in your view?
By the way, DOBL...
Michale is, most decidedly, a US citizen. Perhaps he will cite his resume for you sometime. Or, you could just read through all of his comments. Call it a test of your inner strength. :)
It's gonna look like Liberace meets WWE at a lemming stampede.
Very nice, JFC!
One more thing, DOBL, just to set you straight ...
Michale is not a troll. I'll just leave it at that, for now.
[2] Karen: Yes, Hillary has to find the right position from which to "debate" Trump as she has something to lose. I don't. That's what I mean. Trump is a ego-maniacal gasbag who is trying to keep everyone from finding out he isn't a billionaire, he is a tax evader, he can't get it up anymore and his hair surgery failed. He has a couple of robotic-sons, a trophy wife and people around him who are opportunists first and foremost. He buys people, and he disposes of them. He pays people to take care of annoyances and, of course, money talks. But he can't put together complete sentences and the only thing he knows is charm and bluster. Charm fades fast when people like him are actually cornered.
One doesn't "debate" people like him because he doesn't believe anything or know very much outside his narrow area of focus. He is all facade. You just have to be there, unimpressed.
So Paula,
Are you with me on hoping for a Trump-Sanders debate before the California primary?
@Liz:
Because, focussing just on Trump's qualifications for the job, and ignoring the fact that he's an utterly horrible man, I think that if anybody wrote out a list of the skills and other attributes required of a President of the United States, Trump would fail on ALL of them.
You can't vote for a Presidential candidate if your only reason is "I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it any more". I'm horrified that all that the Democrats can throw up as candidates is Hillary and Bernie, but at least Hillary has been a Governor's wife, First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of State. She knows what the job of POTUS entails. She may even have one or two ideals and a tiny shrivelled little concept of eight and wrong. But I'm worried sick that she seems to think that Henry Kissinger is the terrier's testicles and that Wall Street billionaires are 100% patriotic Americans.
If I were a United States citizen I'd put a clothes peg on my nose, a paper bag over my head, and I'd SNEAK into the polling booth and vote for Hillary, then slink home and get blasted on cheap supermarket Scotch. But the big point is – I'd vote for Hillary.
Americans! Do the same. You love your country. So bloody well SAVE your country!
DOBL,
I understand there is a third option and that the Libertarian Party is now holding its very own convention.
Apparently, their ticket consists of two former governors (Republicans, I think) who are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" and will be on the ballot in all 50 states and, presumably, US territories or what-have-you.
Is this not an option for a serious voter in the general election?
By the way, I think you're being a little too harsh about Hillary. Did I just write that? :)
If Trump can be seriously considered for President of the United States, then why not a Kardashian? Perhaps it is time for the USA to jettison the whole Presidential system along with the dysfunctional House and move to a Parliamentary one with a Prime Minister based on who controls the Senate? At least that way we might get more of a professional statesman like government rather than the clown car driven one we seem to be heading towards.
Here is another example of what makes America great and what garners President Obama so much respect abroad, if not at home, sadly:
He visited the memorial in Hiroshima and here is a transcript of his very moving speech, as transcribed by the New York Times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html?_r=1
Let me rephrase that as I added one too many commas ...
Here is another example of what makes America great and what garners President Obama so much respect abroad - if not at home, sadly:
He visited the memorial in Hiroshima and here is a transcript of his very moving speech, as transcribed by the New York Times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html?_r=1
@Liz:
Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't know.
Point one: the Libertarian would not stand a wax cat in hell's chance of getting elected.
Point two: I believe that libertarianism cannot be taken seriously as a political belief; I regard it as sub-adolescent. ("Sophomoric" is the American term of abuse, I believe). Likewise Objectivism – Ayn Rand's superstition of choice.
But the Libertarians sound like a great option as a protest vote. In the last British general election, and in my local county council elections a month ago, I voted Green, even though they don't stand a wax cat's, etc. Also many people would say the British Greens can't be taken seriously.
But Americans have a serious problem we Limeys don't have: Donald J Trump.
Sod all your protest votes. Remember Ralph Nader. Vote Hillary and KILL TRUMP.
Michale: look at me when I'm talking to you!
[24] E: Trump vs. Sanders debate?
My concern re: that is it will devolve into a slander Hllary fest. Do I think Sanders could slaughter Trump? Don't know. I think any intelligent person could if they take the gloves off.
Maybe Bernie, realizing he's going to lose anyway, would just say what needs to be said to Trump. But if Bernie went into this with the intent of it somehow helping himself win the Dem nomination I don't think he'd be properly focused. He'd be trying to do what will benefit him, not trying to do what would expose Trump as the big-mouthed, ignorant, Trust-Fund baby bully he is.
In terms of Bernie's ability to deal with Trump's insults -- I have no idea how he'd handle himself. Since I don't know what Bernie's motives are I don't know if it's a good or bad idea from the POV of defeating Trump and electing Hillary. Because I don't think electing Bernie is on the table anymore. But he apparently thinks it is.
{30} DOBL: yeah!
Michale: look at me when I'm talking to you!
Heh.
@John M:
Agreed. Nobody in the whole world regards the American system as a serious option when a new country founded; they all go for a parliamentary system. Look at all the former Soviet republics. Look at East Timor; look at South Sudan
But the parliamentary system, though better than the American, does not by itself turn countries into earthly paradises. In Britain there is a serious chance that we will get as our next Prime Minister a certain person called Boris Johnson. This may happen if our present PM, David Cameron, doesn't get a yes vote in the referendum on whether we stay in the European Community, and has to resign. Boris is as mad as Trump and just as big a liar.
A Parliamentary system has failed to stop Boris.
Paula,
Yeah, I guess I can agree with all of what you said Re. a Sanders-Trump debate. And, Sanders has certainly muddied the waters lately with respect to what his motivations would be in such a debate.
I think the DNC should get completely behind this idea and actively support it with Hillary's complete blessing. Then we wouldn't have to wonder about Bernie's motives - good, bad or indifferent - and just let him at Trump, exposing the Republican nominee for exactly who and what he is.
By keeping this debate close to the issues and forcing Trump completely out of his comfort zone and ignoring any blatant name-calling etc., this could be a phenomenal event - for Sanders, the entire Democratic Party and especially for Hillary, the soon-to-be presumptive and official Democrat nominee for President.
I'm guessing this could turn into something that Trump will be sorry he got himself into ...
I agree Paula, except that I have more faith in Sanders's ability to deconstruct Trump in a debate forum. I think Trump will have finally met his match.
And, an added bonus ... Hillary will be able to form some solid plans for the presidential debates.
[33] Elizabeth: the wild card would remain whether Bernie can be trusted to do what he would necessarily have to commit to do if the DNC backed him.
Meanwhile, I don't think Trump will do it.
Oh, I think Bernie can be trusted to do that.
But, you're right - why on earth would Trump put himself in that position. I mean, he's not stupid! :)
Paula,
Bernie could really turn this debate into another notch on his belt in pushing forward on the political revolution that he advocates, thereby advancing his ideas further and further into the Democratic platform. That would be quite enough motivation not to do anything untoward or to harm Hillary in any way.
I'm quite surprised that some democrats and their leadership are upset by this debate proposal because this whole Sanders-Trump debate thing is a win for everyone involved except, of course, for Team Trump. Which is why it probably won't happen. :(
And, one more thing in favour of the Sanders-Trump debate and then I'll get back to reality ...
There wouldn't be anyone questioning the unity of the Democratic Party as this is just the kind of event to unify Democrats like they have never been unified before!
@Liz:
[38] I agree Trump's not stupid. But he knows nothing and thinks he knows everything, he's veryveryVERYVERY rich, he has his lawyers on speed-dial, and if anybody REALLY gets his goat he sues them.
You are in megabig trouble with that person. Stupid would have been much better.
[39] Elizabeth: I don't think anything that involves FOX News is good for Democrats. FOX is not a legitimate outlet -- I think Democrats should basically boycott FOX. They should never validate it.
I think you give Trump way too much credit, DOBL.
Would you like to see a Sanders-Trump debate - I think it would be a real hoot - in every sense imaginable!
What's FOXnews got to do with this?
PBS should set it up!
Or C-SPAN ...
Speaking of Obama visiting the Hiroshima's Hall of Remembrance:
Was I the only one who was unaware that there were 12 American POW's being held in Hiroshima that were killed by our dropping the bomb? I had never heard any mention of their sacrifice until reading about the Japanese man who fought to have their names added to the Memorial's list of victims who died in the attack. I can understand why the U.S. government wasn't going to really publicize the killing of our own members of the military, but their sacrifice seems completely absent from history books in this country.
Trump is smart to want to debate Sanders, knowing that he benefits by driving a wedge between Bernie supporters and Clinton by keeping the focus on Clinton's policies that Sanders disagrees with. Too many Sanders supporters already live in denial that Bernie won't be the nominee; a strong showing by Sanders will only further their belief that Sanders has the best chance at defeating Trump and could potentially keep them from voting for Hillary out of protest. Even if Sanders avoided trashing Clinton in his answers, Trump would be able to without anyone defending her positions. That doesn't help anyone but Trump.
LWYH,
I suppose that's one way of looking at it.
Are you a half-glass empty kind of guy?
I can understand why the U.S. government wasn't going to really publicize the killing of our own members of the military, but their sacrifice seems completely absent from history books in this country.
Something should be done about that. I wonder what nominee Trump would have to say about it. Someone should ask him.
Half-glass empty? Well, you know what I mean. It's hot here ...
Apologies for not getting to all these.. My Net connection was down at work all day and my night times belong to my lovely wife....
If anyone seriously wants some points addressed, regurgitate them in the upcoming http://FTP...
I WILL address one point, however..
DecayedLiberal
Michale: look at me when I'm talking to you!
You aren't talking TO me....
Yer talking ABOUT me... :D
Michale
If anyone seriously wants some points addressed, regurgitate them in the upcoming http://FTP...
DON'T click on that link!!!
It would be bad...
"OK, I'm fuzzy on the whole GOOD/BAD thing... What do you mean, 'BAD'??"
-Dr Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS
:D
Michale
How bad would it be?
Elizabeth Miller
Are you a half-glass empty kind of guy?
So you are asking if I am short and empty? Hehehe! No, I like to think of myself as being more of a "This has caffeine in it, right?" kind of person. I think Bernie could benefit from the debate in it will pressure Hillary to move further left on issues he focuses on. I think Hillary would benefit from Bernie just crushing Trumps' lies and flip/flops. But despite that, even if Bernie crushes him, I fear that Trump would still be the biggest winner in how this would hurt how Hillary is viewed as being the leader of the Democratic Party. It is a huge slam in Hillary's face that this is even being considered.
(50) Trump's already made it clear that he thought they were "Losers!", so I guess it's their own fault for being caught!
JohnM [27],
"If Trump can be seriously considered for President of the United States, then why not a Kardashian?"
As Bill Maher pointed out on his last show, the Dems have their own version of Trump to fear and his name is Kanye.
DOBL,
"If I were a United States citizen I'd put a clothes peg on my nose, a paper bag over my head, and I'd SNEAK into the polling booth and vote for Hillary"
Our voting system here in the U S and A is actually a voting prevention system. Voting for her will really only matter in a handful of purple states. We have 50 different elections. Red states are not going to flip blue just because the poorly-educated base has nominated The Thing from the Orange Lagoon.
Heh.
I think we have a winner in the name Trump contest!
LWYH,
So you are asking if I am short and empty?
Something like that. Heh. In any event it's a moot point as the big debate is a definite no-go.
Is this (voting Libertarian) not an option for a serious voter in the general election?
Yes, it is not an option for a serious voter. It's a reasonable option for a serious non-voter in a non-swing state, though.
Casting a ballot for a third party, in a single-seat plurality system, is just another way of not voting. Now technically, the president is not elected by direct plurality voting: we have the electoral college in between. But a state's electors are not its citizens' MPs, and this is not a parliamentary system. We vote for president on a plurality-by-state basis.
I would like to have multi-party politics. I would like to have multi-member "superdistricts" for the House, and majority (i.e. runoff) voting for the presidency, although I would keep single-seat plurality voting for the Senate. But the fact is that we don't have a multi-party system, and pretending we do is un-serious.
But the fact is that we don't have a multi-party system, and pretending we do is un-serious.
That does make a lot of sense. And, I suppose, if voters really wanted a change in the status quo then Hillary wouldn't be winning all the major primaries this election cycle. So, there you go.
That does make a lot of sense. And, I suppose, if voters really wanted a change in the status quo then Hillary wouldn't be winning all the major primaries this election cycle. So, there you go.
If you change "VOTERS" to "DEMOCRATS" you would be dead on ballz accurate....
It's the Democrats who, en masse, really don't want a change in the Status Quo..
Republicans and Independents/NPAs have made their choice very VERY clear...
And their choice is President Trump...
Michale
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3616453/New-video-footage-Harambe-shows-400-pound-gorilla-HOLDING-HANDS-four-year-old-boy-fell-zoo-enclosure-witnesses-say-animal-acting-protectively.html
Like I said... Democrats are morons....
Present company excluded, of course.. :D
Michale