Doug C Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 John Smith and tinnitus photography, calling someone out is verboten. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 calling someone out on what? a departure from reality? ok. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Ha ha! I knew I shouldn't have edited. I originally had "calling Hixter out" but changed it. Remember when he went on about calling him out? Link to post Share on other sites
The Inside of Outside Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I found this to be a good take on Trump's future:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/ Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 No he isn't. And if Charles Manson were leading the Unabomber and ISIS in a poll of Democrats he wouldn't be exposing the true nature of their party, either.We'll, it would actually. First off Trumps views are not different from any other GOP candidate. He just says it in his Trump way. Blunt, and to the point are ways I have heard him described. His popularity speaks to a large segment of GOP voters. A large segment believes what he says and agrees with how he says it. If you don't think this says something about the current nature of the GOP you are being wilfully ignorant. Sure many Republicans are probably embarrassed by him, but not enough to move him from the font runner status. I guess you have to ask yourself, if the presidential election was tomorrow and it was Trump v Clinton, would you vote for Trump? How many conservatives would vote for Trump? That says something about the GOP and our political process. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 John Smith and tinnitus photography, calling someone out is verboten.Your right, not naming someone while questioning the outlandish nature of their post is bad form. Though it does appear that someone is being called out in the above referenced post. Anubow...so Manson and the Unibomber are polling well in this very realistic scenario, wait they can't be because they are convicted felons. Trump on the other really is polling well because he is saying what the R base wants to hear, or at least the republicans I know in the very republican world I live in. Of course some of these people also still see the former gov of Alaska as a viable option. Again that's not every one just the ones I sit by at work and that are in my social circle, including county board members. But that is not a reflection on republicans, and what they are looking for. Nope. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 John, thanks! Calling out is bad form, that was the exact quote. Ha ha! Trump appeals to many Republicans but as Kevin was saying, when it comes down to it, even many of the people he appeals to wouldn't actually vote for him. Manson/ISIS "analogy" is laughable. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I'm disappointed that Hitler isn't leading the Dem polls. Charles Manson has some interesting ideas on infrastructure, and he really tells it like it is. Refreshing. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 What Trump, Cruz, Paul, and others who have little chance of wining do is pull the party further to the right, further into the realm of parody. the ones who actually do have a chance in the general election have to respond. And if they respond with a moderate position they have a harder chance of winning the primaries. If they try to out conservative each other then they have those statements and ideas hanging over their heads in the General. It's a tough he to dig out of. On a side note...there is always talk of getting a business person in to run the government. Has there ever been a purely business person who has become a successful president? Governor? I ask because I am totally against this sort of thing. You can not run a government like a business. If you did many rural areas would be cut off from services for not being cost effective. Mississippi would get sold off (divested for not being a profitable branch). Division heads ( say the governor of Kansas) would be let go or reassigned to special projects ( like the sale of Mississippi) due to their ineffectual performance. Etc... Business people can't govern like they run a business. The budgeting process is entirely different too. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Exactly. Businesses exist to make a profit for investors, owners and shareholders. Government doesn't exist to make a profit, but to provide services for citizens, you know promoting the general welfare and such. People like Trump certainly know how to make money but the "business" of governing is anathema to them. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Totally! The government through the lens of business myth is one of the most pervasive, wrongheaded ideologies of our time. I see it in education all the time. "This school is struggling? Let's run it like Walmart, they're successful! " Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 So all successful for profit business executives are incapable of applying leadership and management skills to a nonprofit governmental scenario? As opposed to legislators who've never managed a thing? Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 My question was to ask if there had been successful ones. The common thought is that they managed a business so they should be able to manage a governmental body. That's not the case business methods do not always apply and business leaders are usually subject to the direction of a board of directors. People who have served in government are more familiar with the mechanisms of government which exist by law. And none of this means they can't be successful, but just assuming they would be because they have business experience is dangerous. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/donald_trump_is_an_actual_fascist_what_his_surging_popularity_says_about_the_gop_base/ The thing is, his style — full of race baiting, xenophobia and belligerent nationalism — is not unique to Trump; he is simply the most blatant and vocal about it. There’s a reason he’s leading in the GOP polls: the party’s base likes what he’s saying. The people are angry about illegal immigrants murdering white women (anyone who has followed Bill O’Reilly over the past week knows what I’m talking about), homosexuals destroying the tradition of marriage, and so on. Much like fascism reacted to modernity and social progress in the early 20th century, right-wingers are reacting angrily to social progress of the new century. (Of course, there has been no economic progress, which is why the left is also angry.) Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 We'll, it would actually. First off Trumps views are not different from any other GOP candidate. He just says it in his Trump way. Blunt, and to the point are ways I have heard him described. His popularity speaks to a large segment of GOP voters. A large segment believes what he says and agrees with how he says it. If you don't think this says something about the current nature of the GOP you are being wilfully ignorant. Sure many Republicans are probably embarrassed by him, but not enough to move him from the font runner status. I guess you have to ask yourself, if the presidential election was tomorrow and it was Trump v Clinton, would you vote for Trump? How many conservatives would vote for Trump? That says something about the GOP and our political process. I am doing my best to not consider political party when analyzing a candidate's fitness for the presidency. The question as to whether Trump's early success in the polls is a barometer of the current Republican party is a meaningless question to me. I won't vote for him if her runs as a Republican, independent, or anything else. As someone who's always considered themselves a libertarian Republican (not nearly as ideologically pure as a Rand Paul type), it's been hard to watch the movement of the Republicans to the right on everything. I am still registered Republican because I appreciate the opportunity to support moderates at primaries and caucuses. It's becoming a more and more futile effort, though. I have been laughed at for my views regarding church and state at caucuses. One of my most important considerations for president is how well will this person reach across the aisle and compromise and what will be the nature of that compromise. The Tea Party considers compromise a dirty word. And I am tired of compromises where Republicans get the tax cuts (or lack of tax hikes) they want as long as the Democrats get the spending they want. Continuing to pass on this unbelievable -- and somewhat unnecessary -- debt. It's exactly the opposite of what we need. On a side note...there is always talk of getting a business person in to run the government. Has there ever been a purely business person who has become a successful president? Governor? I ask because I am totally against this sort of thing. You can not run a government like a business. If you did many rural areas would be cut off from services for not being cost effective. Mississippi would get sold off (divested for not being a profitable branch). Division heads ( say the governor of Kansas) would be let go or reassigned to special projects ( like the sale of Mississippi) due to their ineffectual performance. Etc... Business people can't govern like they run a business. The budgeting process is entirely different too. Who have been the most effective presidents in my 45 years? Not the most successful, but effective in getting their agenda through. I would say the top 3 are Reagan, Bush (the younger), and Clinton. All three were governors. Bush and Reagan had more private sector experience, but in very different worlds. I tend to think executive experience matters more than legislative and some private sector experience is valuable, but not just private sector. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I will vote for Trump for President for the same reason I voted for Jesse Ventura for Gov. of MN: I do enjoy a shitshow. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 As someone who's always considered themselves a libertarian Republican (not nearly as ideologically pure as a Rand Paul type), it's been hard to watch the movement of the Republicans to the right on everything. I am still registered Republican because I appreciate the opportunity to support moderates at primaries and caucuses. It's becoming a more and more futile effort, though. I have been laughed at for my views regarding church and state at caucuses. You guys are long way away from the party of Eisenhower these days. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I agree that effective governors seem to make effective presidents. They have experience as the head of a government's executive branch, so it at least follows logic. A couple of examples that aren't in our lifetime are FDR and Eisenhower. FDR as governor of New York and Eisenhower as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and commander of the European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army. A governor and a Five Star General do what presidents do, make executive decisions based not on increasing shareholder profits but on providing services to citizens. Trump, Fiorina, Perot, et al., have no experience doing what heads of executive branches of government do. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 References to Eisenhower got me to thinking... Could Colin Powell win as an independent? I don't think he wants the job, but let's assume he did. He's too moderate to get the Republican nomination. Probably in too deep with Iraq to get the Democratic nomination. He'd be a good no-nonsense leader. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Colin Powell will be nearly 80 yrs old when the next president takes office. But besides that, no he couldn't win as an independent. There isn't a person alive who could break the 2 party system when it comes to the White House. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Geez. I had no idea he was that old. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Powell is another example of what I think a Republican should be. Granted, I'm a progressive so no one cares, but I think the endangered species of intellectual right, fiscal conservative/social liberal, moderate Republican will always have an important role in the national dialog. Someone has to trim the fat! Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 There isn't a person alive who could break the 2 party system when it comes to the White House. If everyone who continually lamented about the two party system actually got together and voted for someone outside of the two party system we would have a winner. The problem is third party candidates are often more fringe then the Democrats or Republicans. Trump if he runs as an independent will take votes away from GOP, he will not take votes away from the Dems. In 2000 Nader took votes away from the Dems not the GOP. A solid centrist candidate could do it. Really the Whig Party is very appealing to me right now. http://www.modernwhig.org/platform Link to post Share on other sites
BobDylan'sBeard Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 In terms of effectiveness, even if I may not like all of his policies, our current President has gotten A LOT done, period. Now depending on your views this is either a good or bad thing, but he has passed a large amount of legislation (or rather, he has passed very influential pieces of legislation i.e. ACA) for one presidency. I remember reading in like 2011 that his first term had been as "efficient" in terms of creating/changing policies as LBJ in the late '60s. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 In 2000 Nader took votes away from the Dems not the GOP. That's a myth that needs to die. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts