(August 10, 2015 at 6:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Senile old fuck.

An actor reading his lines.

That's what Joan Baez had to say on him back at Woodstock. At least she dedicated the song to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbjRxP-dRE

My cursory glance at history suggests that we're still being punished for Reagan's economic policies, especially in the form of current "conservative" adherence to them. I think it's finally starting to get through to some people that Reagan set us back decades on that front.

(August 10, 2015 at 6:18 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Those who believe that Trump could never win the Presidency could find themselves shaking their heads in disbelief someday. A large enough segment of the electorate is fiercely anti-intellectualism. I live in VA, and I hear these people all of the time. They love the idea of a plainspoken, tell-it-like-it-is, everyman as leader of the free world.To suggest that the POTUS should be highly intelligent means you are a Communist.

Unless something radically happens Trump should become the Repub nominee and eventually the President, especially if he runs against Hillary.  That's because he's more likeable than any of the other Repubs.  His hard line against illegals will gain him points among black voters since the Dems are pro-illegals which hurt the black population as a group.  Trump's emphasis on making America great again appeals to a lot of voters across the country.  

The Dem establishment is trying to sink Sanders from gaining any support from black voters although his record shows that he's the most pro-black candidate in the crowd.  

I see Trump as a simple-minded asshole but his most important point is that he isn't a Southerner.  We've had enough of those during the past 226 years.  He isn't a crooked Clinton or a dumb Bush.  He's saner than most of the Repubs and he's a home-grown American unlike Cruz, Rubio, and Jendal.  His big drawback is that he has his head stuck up Israel's butt.  He probably knows zero about American history.  

He should come in between Grant and Truman.

And then they wonder why people shout: "Death to America!" Can't believe people like these crazies. Donald Trump is a worse liar than Hamza Tsortzis, and that takes some doing.

(August 10, 2015 at 7:01 pm)TRJF Wrote: My cursory glance at history suggests that we're still being punished for Reagan's economic policies, especially in the form of current "conservative" adherence to them.  I think it's finally starting to get through to some people that Reagan set us back decades on that front.

Indeed we are.

(August 10, 2015 at 7:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 6:18 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Those who believe that Trump could never win the Presidency could find themselves shaking their heads in disbelief someday. A large enough segment of the electorate is fiercely anti-intellectualism. I live in VA, and I hear these people all of the time. They love the idea of a plainspoken, tell-it-like-it-is, everyman as leader of the free world.To suggest that the POTUS should be highly intelligent means you are a Communist.

Unless something radically happens Trump should become the Repub nominee and eventually the President, especially if he runs against Hillary.  That's because he's more likeable than any of the other Repubs.  His hard line against illegals will gain him points among black voters since the Dems are pro-illegals which hurt the black population as a group.  Trump's emphasis on making America great again appeals to a lot of voters across the country.  

The Dem establishment is trying to sink Sanders from gaining any support from black voters although his record shows that he's the most pro-black candidate in the crowd.  

I see Trump as a simple-minded asshole but his most important point is that he isn't a Southerner.  We've had enough of those during the past 226 years.  He isn't a crooked Clinton or a dumb Bush.  He's saner than most of the Repubs and he's a home-grown American unlike Cruz, Rubio, and Jendal.  His big drawback is that he has his head stuck up Israel's butt.  He probably knows zero about American history.  

He should come in between Grant and Truman.

I believe Clinton can defeat Trump, though he will give her more of run for her money than other Republican can. 
I just don't see black Democrats, voting for Trump en masse due to his stance on immigration. If that were the case, I'm sure blacks would be voting Republican by and large already. Maybe, this could happen to some degree if he ran as an Independent and we have a 3-way race in 2016. Even so the effect would be negated by the sheer number of Republicans that are enamored with Trump. That would still Hilary on top. 
Personally, I prefer Sanders to Clinton, but I don't think he can win in a general election. Not now, anyway.

(August 10, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Thena323 Wrote: I believe Clinton can defeat Trump, though he will give her more of run for her money than other Republican can. 

Not that I'm a big fan of Clinton, since she's a shameless money grabber like all the others and I don't have a horse in the race anyway. But do you think, the average American electorate is open enough to vote for a woman?

(August 10, 2015 at 6:18 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Those who believe that Trump could never win the Presidency could find themselves shaking their heads in disbelief someday. A large enough segment of the electorate is fiercely anti-intellectualism. I live in VA, and I hear these people all of the time. They love the idea of a plainspoken, tell-it-like-it-is, everyman as leader of the free world.To suggest that the POTUS should be highly intelligent means you are a Communist.

Well one could be a plain spoken every man and still be an intelligent leader. But that will never be the Republicans.

(August 10, 2015 at 7:54 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Thena323 Wrote: I believe Clinton can defeat Trump, though he will give her more of run for her money than other Republican can. 

Not that I'm a big fan of Clinton, since she's a shameless money grabber like all the others and I don't have a horse in the race anyway. But do you think, the average American electorate is open enough to vote for a woman?

That is an interesting question, and one that I wish I were more certain about.  I think enough of the electorate are open to voting for a woman so that a woman could win.  But I do think it will hurt her chances of winning.  And in Clinton's case, there are real reasons why someone would not want her to be president.  Of course, not more real than the reasons why one would not want one of the Republican idiots, but, still, there are real reasons to not like her or want her to be president.

I think Clinton could beat Trump easily, unless she has some more skeletons falling out of her closet that screw things up.  Frankly, I think that if the Republicans wanted to win, they would be best off selecting Bush.  I think he has the best chance of winning among the Republicans, in a general election.  Getting the Republican nomination, though, is a different matter.  But I will not be surprised if he becomes their candidate.

The Republicans might be looney enough to nominate Trump (I hope so) but I absolutely cannot imagine him having a prayer in the general.

Hillary will benefit from being a woman - especially against a pig like Trump. More women typically vote than men and she'll win 60% of that group, easy.