Career politicians and lawyers have done a less than stellar job of running the country in recent memory. Could a businessman do any worse? Is something different worth a try? Someone who has proven he knows how to make tough choices, balance budgets, make a profit, etc.
[quote]dave1791 wrote:
Career politicians and lawyers have done a less than stellar job of running the country in recent memory. Could a businessman do any worse? Is something different worth a try? Someone who has proven he knows how to make tough choices, balance budgets, make a profit, etc.[/quote]
A CEO doesn’t have a 535 member Board of Directors to contend with. He can also shitcan anyone he believes isn’t buying into his vision. And, frankly, the pay is a hell of a lot better.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I don’t think it bodes well that there is no obvious Repub choice.[/quote]
Why? See 1980 Republican primary race.
[/quote]
I looked at the candidates and stand by my statement, lol. In sports terms, that was a deep, deep bench.
Not one real estate developer, pediatrician, deposed CEO, or one-term Governor in the bunch.*
And if Walker and Kasich declare, the field will be up to 16.
Lastly, the Republicans were running against Jimmy Carter who is widely acknowledged to be the weakest Democratic President since…who? Wilson? Van Buren? Any one of the top 6 Republicans could have beat Carter. We can’t say the same about the current field.
[/quote]
Well, you’re simply wrong my friend. This is the strongest field of Presidential candidates on either side in a very long time. And if you look at each individual candidate you will see what I mean. But you’re probably not old enough to remember the real stinkers who have run. Trust me it’s a great field!
As for the many who ran in 1980 primaries they did so because, just as you say, Jimmy Carter was a poor President. But, in comparison to Obama Jimmy Carter is a star. But I digress. They are not running against Obama (who was actually a great candidate). They are running against a far weaker candidate.
Why do you think that the field is so large? Do you think they are all throwing their hats in the ring because they feel there is no chance?
Really…Hillary is so very beatable that just about everyone thinks they can do it…even The Donald.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What about pretending to have to assume that not all Mexican immigrants are rapists is “fresh”? Exactly how difficult is it to speak for twenty minutes without saying something racist or stupid?
[quote]
You should pay better attention and drop the politically correct bullshit. Trump never said they were all rapists. In fact…ah never mind just keep listening to those sound bites you’re going to learn so much.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay…
I know Polls this far out have little meaning to eventual outcomes.
With that being said, recent Polls show Trump running a close SECOND to Bush, with no other contender even in double digits.
So I pose these NON-rhetorical questions to “PWI”:
Why is Trump even in serious consideration? Is he REALLY that popular among voters…or is it his “F*uck You” attitude/Stick it to the President-“MSLM” schtick?
Is it because he is out of the gates “fast-and-furious”, while others (like Walker) have been tentative?
What exactly is it?
Personally, I’m at a loss…
Mufasa[/quote]
Why Mufasa I do agree with you that Trump seems a bit out of his element. Yet, a scant 7 years ago you were not at all amazed that an inexperienced far left wing, two year Senator with absolutely no real world experience and in fact a person who never even held a real job in the private sector was running for President.
I guarantee you that Trump’s views are far more in line with the main stream electorate than the Saul Alinsky protÃ??Ã?©gÃ??Ã?© Barack Obama.
[/quote]
You just can’t help yourself, can you Zeb?
Mufasa
[/quote]
Logic demands that an incredibly successful and experienced business man is at least as good as a two year Senator when it comes to Presidential candidates. And in my opinion on either side of the isle the business man is much better.
And I’m not necessarily a Trump fan…don’t get me wrong.
[quote]dave1791 wrote:
Career politicians and lawyers have done a less than stellar job of running the country in recent memory. Could a businessman do any worse? Is something different worth a try? Someone who has proven he knows how to make tough choices, balance budgets, make a profit, etc.[/quote]
Stop making sense!
[quote]dave1791 wrote:
Career politicians and lawyers have done a less than stellar job of running the country in recent memory. Could a businessman do any worse? Is something different worth a try? Someone who has proven he knows how to make tough choices, balance budgets, make a profit, etc.[/quote]
Your suggestion is more than Obama had to offer in 2008. There are not enough politicians with business experience in office, even on a fundamental level.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Well, you’re simply wrong my friend. This is the strongest field of Presidential candidates on either side in a very long time. And if you look at each individual candidate you will see what I mean. But you’re probably not old enough to remember the real stinkers who have run. Trust me it’s a great field!
[/quote]
Just 'cause you say it, doesn’t make it so.
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree, but I would suggest those who are interested in the topic to read the bios of the 1980 Republican candidates.
It consisted of “two popular, former big-state governors (one a former U.S. Treasury secretary, the other a hero of the conservative movement), two Hall of Fame senators (one of them a former vice-presidential nominee, the other a future White House chief of staff), a former CIA director, ambassador, and party chair, and a couple of miscellaneous House members. Not bad, right? That’s your Republican candidate field in 1980: Ronald Reagan, John Connally, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, John Anderson, and Phil Crane. It would produce five presidential nominations and three victories.”
Like I said, All-Star list of candidates.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What about pretending to have to assume that not all Mexican immigrants are rapists is “fresh”? Exactly how difficult is it to speak for twenty minutes without saying something racist or stupid?
[/quote]
You should pay better attention and drop the politically correct bullshit.[/quote]
There is a conspicuous difference between capitulation to PC bullshit and the maxim that seekers of high office should not be stupid, parodic buffoons babbling nonsense into a microphone. You would do well to internalize the difference.
[quote]
Trump never said they were all rapists.[/quote]
He said: “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some I assume are good people.”
First, “they’re rapists” is not a phrase about which there can be argument. They. Are. Rapists. Again: They. Are. Rapists. Surely you can add those three words up and come to a literal understanding of their meaning.
Or perhaps he meant that the rapists are separate from the drug-smugglers and other assorted criminals? In this case, excuse me for doing disservice to the nuance of Donald Trump’s worldview – I forgot about the Mexican criminals and drug-dealers. I’m sure the good Mexicans in this country – I, like Donald, assume they exist…don’t you? – will appreciate your holistic approach to their ethnic denigration in presidential announcements.
[quote]
In fact…ah never mind just keep listening to those sound bites[/quote]
I listened to the whole “speech,” and, if you care to know, it was hilarious. Or, it was hilarious until it occurred to me that the monkeys – the partisans of the Right (don’t worry – the partisans of the Left are monkeys, too) who do not have thoughts of their own other than automatic, reflexive judgments about whether or not X (X’s truth or untruth, stupidity or non-stupidity doesn’t matter in the slightest) is good…for…Tribe – will be standing at one end of the zoo, flinging shit, entirely impressed with Donald Trump and his “fresh” talk.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Well, you’re simply wrong my friend. This is the strongest field of Presidential candidates on either side in a very long time. And if you look at each individual candidate you will see what I mean. But you’re probably not old enough to remember the real stinkers who have run. Trust me it’s a great field!
Just 'cause you say it, doesn’t make it so.[/quote]
True, but if I were to hand you a list of the other Presidential candidates from the past 43 years you would cock your head and look at me like a dog who just heard a high pitched sound. Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to insult you. But, I’ve been following this stuff for decades. So, it’s more than opinion. We have had other Presidential elections where the field was considered large. But never in the history of Presidential elections have we had so many good candidates as the republicans are currently fielding.
Google democratic primary 1972 to get started. Then of course you’d have to read the bio’s on each candidate. But hey if you’re going to debate this stuff might as well get some history on it.
Again, I’m not trying to insult you but I remember each candidate I don’t have to read the bio’s.
[quote]It consisted of “two popular, former big-state governors (one a former U.S. Treasury secretary, the other a hero of the conservative movement), two Hall of Fame senators (one of them a former vice-presidential nominee, the other a future White House chief of staff), a former CIA director, ambassador, and party chair, and a couple of miscellaneous House members. Not bad, right? That’s your Republican candidate field in 1980: Ronald Reagan, John Connally, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, John Anderson, and Phil Crane. It would produce five presidential nominations and three victories.”
Like I said, All-Star list of candidates.
[/quote]
All star list? Okay, yes they were good. I think there were 9 of them with 3 Governors. Certainly a good field. But, today’s group is far better. Not even close (with the exception of Ronald Reagan of course:)
I don’t see a Ronald Reagan in that group. But then again when he was running he was just considered another candidate. He didn’t become “Ronald Reagan” (all star) until after he defeated Carter and was in the White House a few years. In fact, he did a campaign stop near my home and I was on the GOP committee and was asked to pick him up at the air Port. He seemed like a very regular guy to me at the time, granted he was very personable. How was I to know he was going to go on to political super stardom?
Anyway, I’m excited to see who emerges from the large and very talented group of GOP candidates.
Do you have any guesses?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
smh_23 wrote:
What about pretending to have to assume that not all Mexican immigrants are rapists is “fresh”? Exactly how difficult is it to speak for twenty minutes without saying something racist or stupid?
You should pay better attention and drop the politically correct bullshit
There is a conspicuous difference between capitulation to PC bullshit and the maxim that seekers of high office should not be stupid, parodic buffoons babbling nonsense into a microphone. You would do well to internalize the difference.[/quote]
And you would do well to stop calling people who are roughly 10 times smarter and how many times richer (YIKES) than you buffoons and babblers. I mean really…do you think you could stand up to Donald Trump in a one on one debate?
With that said that doesn’t mean that Trump can stand up to the rest of the GOP field does it?
The fun part is seeing if he can, right?
What can I say? I’m not a Trump fan. But he is so very much better than Hillary or the old guy on the popcorn box, what’s his name? Colonel Saunders? No wait he was the chicken guy. I am thinking of the popcorn guy. Oliver somebody. Anyway Bernie Saunders looks like the guy on the popcorn box. Yeah the dems really know how to turn out a field of candidates. A stone cold liar, an old socialist and a couple of Governors that no one has heard of or cares to hear of 
Anyway, as for Trump I will take him over any of the democratic candidates. Is he candid? Yes. Does that suit you? Obviously not you are of the PC generation that gets all scared and cranky when they see the truth coming at them at a rapid rate of speed with no flowery pros mixed in.
No problem…
I was not offended by Trump and in fact was impressed that finally someone on the national stage had the gonads to actually tell the truth. But don’t worry eventually Trump will fall by the wayside to someone who is much more polished than he.
Matters not to me as long as Hillary falls into the dust heap of history after a (preferable) landslide loss to one of those GOP candidates.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
smh_23 wrote:
What about pretending to have to assume that not all Mexican immigrants are rapists is “fresh”? Exactly how difficult is it to speak for twenty minutes without saying something racist or stupid?
You should pay better attention and drop the politically correct bullshit
There is a conspicuous difference between capitulation to PC bullshit and the maxim that seekers of high office should not be stupid, parodic buffoons babbling nonsense into a microphone. You would do well to internalize the difference.[/quote]
And you would do well to stop calling people who are roughly 10 times smarter and how many times richer (YIKES) than you buffoons and babblers. I mean really…do you think you could stand up to Donald Trump in a one on one debate?[/quote]
Gramercies for having humiliated yourself before I even begin. That is kind of you, and it saves me the time.
[quote]
[quote]
He said: “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some I assume are good people.”[/quote]
So you now agree with me. He never said they were all rapists!
Just for fun…
this is exactly what he said:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”[/quote]
Again, this time a little more slowly and simply: I said that he was pretending to have to assume that not all Mexican immigrants to the United States are rapists. His words, as produced now by both you and I, were:
“They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
“They’re rapists.” They are rapists. They. Are. Rapists. If you take the time, you will undoubtedly work through whatever Augean obstacle is impeding your journey to an understanding of this three-word sentence. I wish you favorable winds and happy sailing.
Afterward, you can figure out “And some, I assume, are good people.” In the end you will come to the following conclusion: Donald Trump was pretending – because even an utter idiot like Trump cannot possibly be so stupid as to believe this nonsense – to have to assume that not all Mexican immigrants to the United States are rapists [and drug-smugglers and criminals, if you care to do justice to Donald’s intricate formulation].
QED. Go look up QED and then understand that it marks the end of this argument.
[quote]
You are too used to the polished professional con man politician sugar coating every other word.[/quote]
No, I am looking for a president who is a sober and intelligent statesman rather than a buffoonish reality-TV D-lister about whom intelligent people laugh or don’t think at all.
[quote]
You better run and vote for Hillary. Sure she lies on a continual basis but she is politically correct which is probably more to your liking. No?[/quote]
Here’s the thing: I am not a partisan in your monkey shit-fight. I am not a Hillary supporter, and I could not give a small piece of a shred of a fuck what you think about her. To call a Clinton a liar is, of course, true – and I applaud you for that rarity – but don’t get confused and believe you’re denigrating me.
Anyway, as I said, if the GOP caters to you and your bedfellows at the low end of its base, it will – against all odds – lose. And I’ll come back and laugh, even as I lament an HRC presidency.
Edited.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But, I’ve been following this stuff for decades. So, it’s more than opinion. [/quote]
Oh. It’s MORE than an opinion. Well, why didn’t you say so?
[quote] In fact, he did a campaign stop near my home and I was on the GOP committee and was asked to pick him up at the air Port. He seemed like a very regular guy to me at the time, granted he was very personable. How was I to know he was going to go on to political super stardom?
[/quote]
So, you served as Reagan’s chauffeur once? My Pakistani cabbie today told me he drove Frank Thomas home the day he got back from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. The cabbie still didn’t know jack shit about baseball. Not to insult you, though…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Most around here are simply too young to be aware of the many candidates who ran for the republican nomination back in 1980.
[/quote]
To be completely honest I was born in 86. However, I am quite the history nerd.
[quote]dave1791 wrote:
Career politicians and lawyers have done a less than stellar job of running the country in recent memory. Could a businessman do any worse? Is something different worth a try? Someone who has proven he knows how to make tough choices, balance budgets, make a profit, etc.[/quote]
Being President is nothing like running a business. Businesses exist to make money. The gov’t exists to protect our rights from those who are less enlightened about liberty so that we can freely make money on our own.
I get so sick of the tired, shortsighted view that someone who is a successful businessman would make an excellent politician.
I think Cicero covered the issue quite well in De Republica. One of the points he continually makes is that the best statesmen are those who live a life of virtue. And he makes the particular point that living a life of virtue means to judge all actions based on the common good.
Many of our own Founding Fathers strongly felt that men with private interests (business owners) were unfit for public office because their interests were bound to come into conflict at some point with the “general welfare” of the nation. The Founding Fathers, along with both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Romans upon whose political principles our country is founded, felt that philosophers, real thinking men, were best-suited for political office.
Cicero in particular points out that those who hold material wealth in high importance are especially likely to resort to non-virtuous actions. He reasons, and I would agree with him, that those who pursue such material wealth and hold such endeavors in the highest regard naturally end up choosing pleasure over good. He reasons that the truly virtuous statesman does good for good’s sake and not out of personal pleasure or reward. It’s basically the anti-thesis of Ayn Rand and her bullshit “philosophy”.
Donald Trump doesn’t strike me as the virtuous-statesman-type.
Incidentally, Cicero begins his discourse on the virtues of the statesman only after first arguing that Rome has begun the downward slide toward any of the three malignant forms of gov’t (tyranny, oligarchy, ochlocracy) due to a loss of traditional Roman values. Especially concerning for him is the loss of tradition surrounding the Roman constitution. He was writing in about 54 BCE.
Sound familiar?
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Most around here are simply too young to be aware of the many candidates who ran for the republican nomination back in 1980.
[/quote]
To be completely honest I was born in 86. However, I am quite the history nerd. [/quote]
Then you understand the value of primary sources.
Who gives a fuck if Trump called a bunch of illegal Mexicans “rapists”? I live in Northern VA, which is a hub of illegal immigration, and I can assure you that many of them ARE rapists. There are “Spanish speaking” neighborhoods in Arlington, Fairfax and PW county that any sane, single woman alone would avoid. Why? BECAUSE SHE WOULD LIKELY BE RAPED… MS 13 is a very strong presence in my old neighborhood. Guess how they initiate female members? THEY RAPE THEM… But that’s not popular to say…
This is just another SENTENCE that the MSLM are repeating over and over because it fits their PC agenda.
I’m no Trump supporter - I’m just a guy who lives in Northern Virginia who has to deal with a bunch of illegal Spanish speaking immigrants on a daily basis. And I can tell you that they are bringing our country down. Sucking up valuable resources, clogging our roads causing non-insured accidents and hit and runs, driving down wages and increasing the crime in our neighborhoods (including rape).
So who gives a fuck what Trump says about a non-voting block of ILLEGAL immigrants? Why are we getting our panties in a twist about it? Fuck them, they should be deported and made to enter the country LEGALLY, and if they have to wait, they have to wait. That’s the LAW…
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I live in Northern VA, which is a hub of illegal immigration, and I can assure you that many of them ARE rapists[/quote]
So: A guy on the internet, who is neither a politician nor a public figure, and who is not seeking high office (or, for that matter, office of any sort), and who never kowtows to anything PC, makes an anecdotal (i.e., weak by definition) argument without supplying one number or datum…and still manages to get it infinitely more right than did the presidential candidate in front of the entire nation.
Which is to say, again, that Donald Trump is a buffoon and an imbecile. He said something wrong (i.e., incorrect, i.e., not factually accurate) and stupid. He is a clown. That’s what the thesis was; that’s why this matters. He is trying to inflate his own ego/profile at the GOP’s expense and a bunch of the worst and dullest base voters appear to be poised to lend a helping hand. Do you really need it spelled out here? Do you understand how important Latinos are going to be in 2016, particularly if the GOP candidate is running against a woman? Do you understand that when HRC is happy, something is not going well for you politically? “Recently, a Republican candidate for president described immigrants as drug dealers, rapists and criminals.” That’s the line she’s been using. It’s a fucking gift on a silver platter. One wonders how many more she has coming.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I live in Northern VA, which is a hub of illegal immigration, and I can assure you that many of them ARE rapists[/quote]
So: A guy on the internet, who is neither a politician nor a public figure, and who is not seeking high office (or, for that matter, office of any sort), and who never kowtows to anything PC, makes an anecdotal (i.e., weak by definition) argument without supplying one number or datum…and still manages to get it infinitely more right than did the presidential candidate in front of the entire nation.
Which is to say, again, that Donald Trump is a buffoon and an imbecile. He said something wrong (i.e., incorrect, i.e., not factually accurate) and stupid. He is a clown. That’s what the thesis was; that’s why this matters. He is trying to inflate his own ego/profile at the GOP’s expense and a bunch of the worst and dullest base voters appear to be poised to lend a helping hand. Do you really need it spelled out here? Do you understand how important Latinos are going to be in 2016, particularly if the GOP candidate is running against a woman? Do you understand that when HRC is happy, something is not going well for you politically? “Recently, a Republican candidate for president described immigrants as drug dealers, rapists and criminals.” That’s the line she’s been using. It’s a fucking gift on a silver platter. One wonders how many more she has coming.[/quote]
Bush appears to be navigating the issue of Immigration infinitely better than others. He evens speaks fluent Spanish while on the stump.
This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Bush being more “PC”…he just possesses more knowledge than ignorance on the subject.
Mufasa
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Here’s the thing: I am not a partisan in your monkey shit-fight.[/quote]
Well that was certainly well said. Actually Trump could teach you a few things about phrasing your sentences.
And that’s not a good thing!
No? Well that’s good so you should stop acting like a PC Hillary supporter. Your panties were all in a bunch because Trump simply told the truth. I know politicians usually don’t do that and it sounded all mean and nasty. But, it was the truth.
Anyway, I’m pretty familiar with our MO from posting here a couple of years ago. You are not a bad guy, but you do go off the deep end plenty of times for no real reason. Maybe you should take up Yoga or some other deep breathing exercise. I defended Trump and you immediately took it personally. Tell me is there some sort of connection? Is your family feuding with the Trumps or something? No, of course not there are no ties there. So try to relax. I got you all upset by simply defending Donald Trump. That’s kind of funny. No?
Then again…
I don’t think that’s a sign of a completely confident and mature person do you?
“A small piece of a shred of fuck?”
You see sentences like that are just…um well they make far less sense than what the Donald said huh?
You don’t feel good about that one do you?
You wish you had that one back right now huh?
What if The Donald said such a thing. Oh my you would be all over T Nation making fun of him huh? Yes…
LOL
Come on laugh at yourself. They say you’ll live longer and happier if you do that. Well not necessarily “you” but most in general…
When I call Hillary a liar I was trying to denigrate you. Did it work? Do you feel denigrated? No?
Dang…now what can I say?
You silly little man I was not trying to denigrate you. But it must have felt that way for some reason…now I wonder why that was?
See, you are very insecure and there’s no reason for it, is there?
I mean you are not less of a man in any way than the rest of us right? So, why do you take all of this personally? You have some work to do mister
[quote]Anyway, as I said, if the GOP caters to you and your bedfellows at the low end of its base, it will – against all odds – lose. And I’ll come back and laugh, even as I lament an HRC presidency.
.[/quote]
Ha ha…“low end of its base” I think the low end of the country (along with University Profs and Hollywood and the media folks) have already spoken their piece and elected Obama. They will be in line to do the same for Hillary. Fortunately for those of us who employ many numbers of people and actually contribute to the economy they won’t be winning this time. Hold on, did I somehow offend you again? Tell the truth did I? If so I’m really sorry don’t go all crazy again and say stuff like “shreds of fuck and other nonsensical things” Psst…makes you look bad 
I want to end with an apology of sorts. Sorry you got all upset about me defending Trump. If I thought for one minute you were going to over react like this and most likely spike your blood pressure and say crazy stuff I would never have mentioned it.
Next time perhaps we can discuss the issues. That of course is not as much fun is it?
As for Trump try to forget about him. He will go his merry way after his fifteen minutes of political fame. He will be back to counting his money, suing people, doing reality shows and who knows probably nailing Miss USA contestants. And you and I will have many other things to discuss of far more importance, right?
This is after all only T Nation and not Meet The Press.