Trump running for President

Jeb Bush seems too establishment Republican and also is not proving to be as adept as many thought he was going to be, Rubio looks too much like a kid, Rand Paul is an arrogant a-hole IMO, and also way too libertarian and isolationist, Ted Cruz is too socially conservative and also like Obama thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, Scott Walker might be a good candidate though. As for Trump, he politics-wise also strikes me as an arrogant a-hole, as he thinks he's the smartest guy on the issues and everyone else is a moron, and he will turn the whole thing into a circus.

 

Ironically, the only candidate thus far that is looking like the smart, sensible, and possibly effective one is Carly Fiorina. Her problem is the perception that she drove HP into the ground. I don't know how true that is (she of course says it isn't), but even if not, the perception is what will hurt her. Some point out that she got clobbered in running against Barbara Boxer in California, but then again, that's California. Her being clobbered there was no more surprising than Wendy Davis getting clobbered in Texas. Also some say that since she has never been in government, that is bad.

 

It would really be the ultimate bitch slap to Hillary though, to lose to a female Republican candidate.

 

Jeb is a tool, if you want to call the established Republican, that's fine. But a more apropos title would be RINO (Republican In Name Only). We've had enough Bushes, and he'd be by far the worst.

 

Rubio gives pause for a few issues, including the support of the new AG Lynch, and funding the illegal Executive Amnesty debacle. So you'll seriously not vote for a candidate because he "looks too much like a kid,"? I hate knowing people like you vote.

 

Rand isn't so much arrogant, but he's getting more that way after getting plenty of media attention and invigorating the Libertarian base (all 600 of them across college campus'). I wasn't keen on him flip-flopping since the media attention on big issues like thinking it's ok Iran nukes up. I wouldn't say he's ignorant on foreign policy, just not versed; Nor would I call him an isolationist. If you think he's of that cloth, I'd hate to see what you'd call Pat Buchanan.

 

Want to know the difference between Cruz and Obama? Unlike Obama, Ted IS the smartest person in the room. Ever seen POTUS without Teleprompter 1? Cruz relates, is likable, smart, confident and has a strong track record for conservatives.

 

Walker has an uphill battle with conservatives considering his recent acquiescence to the current administration with his push for Obamatrade and fast tracking legislation - not that he ever stood against it.

 

I like Fiorina if only for he fight and attitude. The woman has chutzpah and is willing to put it on the line. I can respect that. I'm not the biggest fan on some of her positions, considering she shilled for McCain - who is an absolute joke and senile at this point.

 

Considering Trump has business experience, is self-funded and has some of the best and brightest at his disposal, he's more qualified than the Senator from Illinois whom has never had a "real job" until being elected, in his life.

 

Just some things to consider.

 

Apologies in advance for all of the words...

 

Jeb is a tool, if you want to call the established Republican, that's fine. But a more apropos title would be RINO (Republican In Name Only). We've had enough Bushes, and he'd be by far the worst.

 

I don't know if he'd be the worst, I mean he was a good governor of Florida from what I understand. I also don't think that Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. were actually bad either. I think a central problem is that we end up with RINOs who don't know how to defend conservatism and thus run as essentially light-hearted Democrats, and thus lose, because no one can out-Democrat a Democrat. On the other side, we have hardcore right-wing conservatives like the Ted Cruzes and Rand Pauls, but these are not winnable either because people perceive them as being too far right-wing. What we need, IMO, is someone who can run as a moderate CONSERVATIVE, i.e. they are not perceived by the public as essentially the same thing as the Democratic candidate, only a lighter version, but rather a distinct and in many ways opposite entity, clearly a conservative, but one seen as center-right as opposed to right-wing. However, the party will never nominate such a candidate unfortunately.

 

If you notice, Mitt Romney, after that first debate, shot up big-time in the polls. The reason was that he came across as a moderate conservative, someone that was an alternative to Obama, as opposed to just being the exact same thing. What did him in was the storm that made him irrelevant, and the Obama campaign focused on his social conservatism and hammered him on it. The GOP claim that every time they run a "moderate" Republican, they lose, but I think that is nonsense. If they run someone who can't explain conservatism at all, and thus gets clobbered by the Democrat in the debates, like a McCain, they lose. But if they think they the solution is to run a hard conservative, I think that is just as mistaken. They need a moderate-seeming conservative IMO.

 

I also wonder if the GOP's social conservatism has made it permanently impossible for it to win the General Election anymore.

 

Rubio gives pause for a few issues, including the support of the new AG Lynch, and funding the illegal Executive Amnesty debacle. So you'll seriously not vote for a candidate because he "looks too much like a kid,"? I hate knowing people like you vote.

 

NOOOO....you misunderstand me. I should have been more clearer. I don't mean that I myself wouldn't vote for Rubio because he looks young, I mean that I think he'd be a risky candidate because many other people out there might not vote for him because he looks young. Like it or not, how you look and sound means a lot when you run for President. For example, do you think Sarah Palin would have gotten near the attention she did in 2008 when she first came on the national scene if she had looked like Rosie O'Donnell?

 

Rand isn't so much arrogant, but he's getting more that way after getting plenty of media attention and invigorating the Libertarian base (all 600 of them across college campus'). I wasn't keen on him flip-flopping since the media attention on big issues like thinking it's ok Iran nukes up. I wouldn't say he's ignorant on foreign policy, just not versed; Nor would I call him an isolationist. If you think he's of that cloth, I'd hate to see what you'd call Pat Buchanan.

 

The reason I say Rand strikes me as arrogant is because he refers to the other Republicans as "neo-cons," which is a pejorative term for GOP and conservatives who do not adhere to his libertarian views, and basically is to imply that they are not "true" conservatives while he is. Libertarians I've noticed often use that term as they are often very arrogant about their self-perceived intelligence, thinking they are the smart ones and that everyone else is just so monumentally, titanically stupid for not agreeing with them on things. Equally, I also don't like it when more moderate conservatives refer to libertarians as the fringe right-wingers, as they both have good points on certain subjects, but I do not like when either is close-minded about the other.

 

I think both Rand and Buchanan are isolationist, just Buchanan is more extremist. But Rand Paul's solution to every foreign policy problem in the U.S. thus far is just for the U.S. to stay out. He also said that the rise of ISIS is because of the hawks in the GOP, which is, at best, hugely oversimplified, and at worst totally wrong.

 

Want to know the difference between Cruz and Obama? Unlike Obama, Ted IS the smartest person in the room. Ever seen POTUS without Teleprompter 1? Cruz relates, is likable, smart, confident and has a strong track record for conservatives.

 

What is his track record? He was a lawyer, but otherwise, he hasn't really been in any executive government positions. He is a first-term Senator. I also do not know if he is likable to people in general. He is likable to social conservatives, but for a general election, I don't know.

 

Walker has an uphill battle with conservatives considering his recent acquiescence to the current administration with his push for Obamatrade and fast tracking legislation - not that he ever stood against it.

 

I like Fiorina if only for he fight and attitude. The woman has chutzpah and is willing to put it on the line. I can respect that. I'm not the biggest fan on some of her positions, considering she shilled for McCain - who is an absolute joke and senile at this point.

 

Considering Trump has business experience, is self-funded and has some of the best and brightest at his disposal, he's more qualified than the Senator from Illinois whom has never had a "real job" until being elected, in his life.

 

Just some things to consider.

 

Yes, but while Trump has those positive attributes, he also has quite a few negative attributes too.

I don't know if he'd be the worst, I mean he was a good governor of Florida from what I understand. I also don't think that Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. were actually bad either. I think a central problem is that we end up with RINOs who don't know how to defend conservatism and thus run as essentially light-hearted Democrats, and thus lose, because no one can out-Democrat a Democrat. On the other side, we have hardcore right-wing conservatives like the Ted Cruzes and Rand Pauls, but these are not winnable either because people perceive them as being too far right-wing. What we need, IMO, is someone who can run as a moderate CONSERVATIVE, i.e. they are not perceived by the public as essentially the same thing as the Democratic candidate, only a lighter version, but rather a distinct and in many ways opposite entity, clearly a conservative, but one seen as center-right as opposed to right-wing. However, the party will never nominate such a candidate unfortunately.

 

If you notice, Mitt Romney, after that first debate, shot up big-time in the polls. The reason was that he came across as a moderate conservative, someone that was an alternative to Obama, as opposed to just being the exact same thing. What did him in was the storm that made him irrelevant, and the Obama campaign focused on his social conservatism and hammered him on it. The GOP claim that every time they run a "moderate" Republican, they lose, but I think that is nonsense. If they run someone who can't explain conservatism at all, and thus gets clobbered by the Democrat in the debates, like a McCain, they lose. But if they think they the solution is to run a hard conservative, I think that is just as mistaken. They need a moderate-seeming conservative IMO.

 

I also wonder if the GOP's social conservatism has made it permanently impossible for it to win the General Election anymore.

 

I'd say the problem is they nominate soft candidates. I mean, they can't be doing any worse, so go all-in, or go home.

 

NOOOO....you misunderstand me. I should have been more clearer. I don't mean that I myself wouldn't vote for Rubio because he looks young, I mean that I think he'd be a risky candidate because many other people out there might not vote for him because he looks young. Like it or not, how you look and sound means a lot when you run for President. For example, do you think Sarah Palin would have gotten near the attention she did in 2008 when she first came on the national scene if she had looked like Rosie O'Donnell?

 

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying on that one.

 

 

 

What is his track record? He was a lawyer, but otherwise, he hasn't really been in any executive government positions. He is a first-term Senator. I also do not know if he is likable to people in general. He is likable to social conservatives, but for a general election, I don't know.

How about, the positions he takes instead of track record. It's late and I don't sleep well lately, so sometimes it's foggy He hasn't been in long enough to get ground up into the spineless pulp D.C. has created, OR, he's strong enough to walk through it and stick to his guns. I suspect the ladder.

 

Yes, but while Trump has those positive attributes, he also has quite a few negative attributes too.

 

Agreed, there is no perfect candidate.

Every candidate who's not Ben Carson that is running right now is a complete moron.

:iamwithstupid:

I forgot about Ben Carson. I like him as a person, but as a candidate, I am not sure what to think. He strikes me as someone who might get clobbered. He also stumbled on a key foreign policy issue, such as when he was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and Hewitt asked him if the NATO countries should be willing to go to war if Russia invades the Baltic states, to which he replied that we need to convince the Baltic states to join NATO. Hewitt pointed out that the Baltic states are already part of NATO.

 

Especially considering that he has never held public office or an executive leadership type of job, he should make doubly sure that he has an extensive knowledge of economics and foreign policy and geopolitics and so forth developed, as people will look hard at that stuff when evaluating whether to vote for him.

Every candidate who's not Ben Carson that is running right now is a complete moron.

 

I like him, but I don't like his 2A positions.

 

Lol at many of the thoughts in here.

 

Gentlemanly wager on Hilary vs who the hell ever?

I love Ben Carson. But i think he shit the bed when he decided to take a hard line approach to "being gay is a choice people make." I dont think Trump could ever win. We live in a society that has banded together (not all, just a LARGE majority) to HATE success and wealth. And Trump is pretty much a walking representation of that. And now he is basing his campaign on that. Dont get me wrong, i admire it. But too many slackers, idiots, and generally angry unsuccessful people are jealous, hate it, and would rather never see that.

 

I personally feel though that IF Ben Carson had a chance, he would be the best man for the job. As part of his platform is "general common sense in governing". SOmething that has been absent from washington for years, if not decades.

 

How people can still vote for a schmuck like Hillary, amidst all the scandals and general fcuk ups, is beyond me. BUt then again, after the last two presidential elections i lost total faith in the majority of Americans....

Uh, trump wont win not because hes successful, but because hes a complete and utter buffoon. A walking caricature of the american dream writ large like something out of a hunter thompson nightmare.

 

This is just bullshit to boost his ratings for his TV show. He wont even make it to the primaries. You think Hilary is dirty? Lmao. The second he finds out that he has to have his financials audited........IM PULLING OUT OF THIS RACE BECAUSE IT IS THE BEST THING I CAN DO FOR AMERICA

I also wonder if the GOP's social conservatism has made it permanently impossible for it to win the General Election anymore.

 

Correct.

 

Gotta get your head out of your ass on women and jesus. Then we'll talk.

 

And Trump is pretty much a walking representation of that. And now he is basing his campaign on that. Dont get me wrong, i admire it. But too many slackers, idiots, and generally angry unsuccessful people are jealous, hate it, and would rather never see that.

 

I think you are mixing two entirely different issues. Trump is a successful businessman, some folks might agree and get into a business relationship or do business with him. Does Trump have serious ideas about domestic policy and more importantly foreign policy that make him a viable candidate to represent the Republican brand or the country, not many people would agree.

 

 

 

I hate to say it.. but if ppl are dumb enough to vote Hillary then they can sleep in the bed they make. I can't believe that in all these "democratic" countries... these sorry sack of shit ppl are the best they can find. I use quotations since democracy is a concept designed to give people the idea that they have a choice... they don't.

 

In 2008, I said ... If ppl are dumb enough to vote, for Obama then they can sleep in the bed they make ...

 

And again in 2012, I said ... If ppl are dumb enough to vote, for Obama then they can sleep in the bed they make ...

 

And by the way, I'm black ...

 

Now I'm saying, I honestly believe Hillary could be seen on national TV ... Drowning puppies ... And damn near half the country would think it's OK ...

 

Despite all of the crap that comes with Hillary ... Right now in a match up against any of the Republican candidates ...

 

The outcome is a toss up if not an outright win for Hillary ...

 

The concept of democracy assumes people actually think for themselves ...

 

In reality, there's lots of people, paid lots of money, to make sure that does NOT happen!!!

I love Ben Carson. But i think he shit the bed when he decided to take a hard line approach to "being gay is a choice people make." I dont think Trump could ever win. We live in a society that has banded together (not all, just a LARGE majority) to HATE success and wealth. And Trump is pretty much a walking representation of that. And now he is basing his campaign on that. Dont get me wrong, i admire it. But too many slackers, idiots, and generally angry unsuccessful people are jealous, hate it, and would rather never see that.

 

I don't think that is the case with most Americans. The problem isn't so much a rich candidate as a rich candidate who the American people perceive, or are led to perceive, as a an out-of-touch elitist who has no idea how to relate to the ordinary person and is for policies that they believe work against the ordinary person's interest. Being a Democrat, this is easier, because the media ignores the wealth of the Democratic candidates and says that they are the ones who are for the middle-class and the poor. Being a rich Republican candidate is tougher as the media will focus on their wealth and argue that they are an out-of-touch elitist and that their policies are only for the rich and big business and will hurt the poor.

 

For example, Hillary and Bill make hundreds of thousands of dollars a speech and are worth a few hundred million now I believe, and very much live the high life and all of that. So who does the New York Times zero in on? That rich elitist tycoon Marco Rubio, with his "luxury speed boat." Now when I hear "luxury speed boat," I envision something like this:

 

 

Not something like this:

 

 

I personally feel though that IF Ben Carson had a chance, he would be the best man for the job. As part of his platform is "general common sense in governing". SOmething that has been absent from washington for years, if not decades.

 

Yeah but the problem is, how does one define "common sense" in governing?

 

How people can still vote for a schmuck like Hillary, amidst all the scandals and general fcuk ups, is beyond me. BUt then again, after the last two presidential elections i lost total faith in the majority of Americans....

 

Well for one, many Americans do not know about the scandals as the media doesn't cover them the way that they should. Imagine if Sarah Palin had been caught with a private e-mail server and then whoops, deleted thousands of e-mails. It'd be constant hardcore coverage. Two is that many do not like Hillary, but would view her as the least bad in comparison to how they perceive many of the Republican candidates.

 

In 2008.....ANYONE but fcuking OBAMA....Obama won

In 2012.....ANYONE but fcuking OBAMA.....Obama won

In 2016.....ANYONE but fcuking HILLARY.....

 

The stupidity of our General Population is incredible.

 

I was traveling a month or 2 ago, and we got into a light political debate, and I was with a buddy who is a Republican, and this girl we were traveling on business with says-"I am going to vote for Hillary because she is the best candidate."

 

So he says- "Ok. What do you like about her?"

 

She replies- "I like her policies and political agenda/stance on things."

 

he says "Ok-tell me about a policy that she created that you see a benefit with?"

 

fcuking CRICKETS....

 

Couldn't answer it. In fact she didn't even know that Hillary was Secretary of State.

Congress has what, a 10% approval rating? Yet the same assholes get voted back in every single election. Term limits... Yes please! At least if they are forced off the ballot we can freshen up that shit hole called congress.

Rand gets my vote simply because I think he's not part of this elite government possi who find themselves above the commoners. Also he wants term limits. Put an end to this monarchy.

I'd vote for Wheels before I'd vote for Trump. We can do without an egomaniacal self righteous asshole. We already had 8 years of that

I'd vote for Wheels before I'd vote for Trump. We can do without an egomaniacal self righteous asshole. We already had 8 years of that

 

You would like a Wheels presidency policy-wise I think. My campaign slogan would be, "Get American Rolling Again"

You would like a Wheels presidency policy-wise I think. My campaign slogan would be, "Get American Rolling Again"

 

Your inaugural address would last the entire 4 year term.

 

 

I've been saying for at least a decade that we need a businessman running this country. Is Trump that businessman? I'm not sure but he pretty smart and has a set of balls. I'm going to let this play out for awhile before I make a decision.

Lol.

 

Yeah, definitely dont rush your decision. Otherwise you might miss little gems like this

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dona...d-actors-803161

Jeb is unlucky in terms of having people looking at him as 'one more Bush'. He seems to be a reasonable person. I guess the bar for Presidents has been set low over the past decades.

Love Donald Trump's off the chart/unexpected approach! Definitely not run-of-the-mill-whore-politician.

The Donald is definitely something who adds a very different flavor to the race. Given the amount of money he can bring to the table he could make a bigger splash than people think!

Your inaugural address would last the entire 4 year term.

 

 

 

From Rand Paul "I'm ready to drive a stake through the heart of the IRS -- and trash all 70,000 pages of our federal government's outdated, confusing tax code.

Today, I'm announcing my Fair and Flat tax plan that I will make the centerpiece of my first term as President of the United States -- a tax plan that puts over $2 TRILLION back in Americans' pockets, creates at least 1.4 million new jobs and turbo-charges our economy in the process.

You can already hear the shrieks and howls coming from the special interest lobby in Washington, D.C. over my announcement.

For far too long, Washington, D.C. bureaucrats and Big Government politicians have believed your money is theirs -- and they can spend it better than everyday hard-working Americans and entrepreneurs.

I disagree.

In fact, I believe if the Washington Machine's tax-and-spend policies aren't stopped, our economy will slide further down the slow-growth rut of the last decade.

That's why I'm proposing to put the Washington Machine on a much-needed diet by enacting the boldest and biggest tax cut in American history.

If passed into law, my tax plan would:

>>> End the workers tax: I will end the FICA payroll tax, the largest tax for many working Americans. It goes to zero.

>>> Eliminate the headaches and complication in filing federal taxes by allowing every taxpayer to file a simple, one-page return with a low and fair tax rate of 14.5%, saving American families over $2 TRILLION in the first 10 years;

>>> End corporate welfare and special tax breaks, eliminating the army of lobbyists and tax lawyers gaming the system. That means no more mom and pop small businesses paying 40% of their income in taxes, while big corporations -- armed with armies of slick lawyers -- pay zero;

>>> Provide a real economic stimulus to our economy by exploding the GDP by almost 10% over the first 10 years.

I understand my plan is bold.

But, I'm not interested in nibbling around the edges of "reforming" Washington.

I'm running for President to flip Washington upside-down on its head and Defeat the Machine.

So please, sign your "Fair and Flat Tax NOW!" petition, and agree to chip in a contribution of $20.16 to help me put my tax plan in front of as many voters as possible in key early states:"