OT: Don't know if Trump's run is coming to an end, but it's been great so far!!

Vlad wrote:Are they actually looking to "trump" their own voters, the majority of whom have voted for The Donald so far? How is that likely to play out??

I know, not well.

Your premise is flawed.  The majority of voters have voted for someone other than Drumpf. 

And this is only the majority of voters in the Primaries.  Which is not the same as a general election.

In Virginia, many of those in the dense population areas picked other than Drumpf.  These people, and I know several, would sooner stay home or even vote for Clinton than cast a vote for Drumpf.

This is what concerns the GOP.  This is Sarah Palin all over again.  But worst.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

"Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump would be an extremely close election, but the economy still favors a Clinton win.
That's according to the Moody's Analytics Presidential Election Model, which has correctly predicted the last nine elections.
As the old adage goes, "it's the economy, stupid." Right now Moody's says the solid U.S. economy throws the election to Democrats -- regardless of whether the nominee is Clinton or Bernie Sanders."

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/29/news/economy/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-2016-gas/

I'm sure that the dumbest person at Moody's is smarter than me, but I think they're full of crap.  The economy is not that good. Non-farm employment has been tanking for four months, and had only been propped up by redefining unemployment and private sector wage growth is a stagnant 2%,

On top of that, the Democrats haven't strung together three consecutive terms in the executive branch since HST rode in on FDR's coattails. History and the economy favor the Pubs and they're screwing it up.

I don't know if Moody's is commenting on the economy. Maybe it's the writer of the article.

Their analytics have been right for the last 9 elections. I don't think they are commenting on how solid the economy is...they are looking at an analytics model and making a prediction.

You know what really pisses me off though? These mod Nazis who merge threads.

Sure, let's go to page 297 to discuss today's events. Who takes message boards this seriously?

Fuckers.

I.B. Fine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

I watched an interview with Robert Reich and he said in all of his years Cruz is one of the most hated men he's ever seen. Sounds like he's just a big time a hole.

Reich said he's heard rumblings but doesn't put much stock in it that some of the establishment repubs may splinter off and go for a third party independent for Bloomberg. In his opinion it's probably too late for that.

He also thinks that the more rational republicans could move towards voting for Hillary, they do not want Trump at all.

Who knows where it's going to lead but it's fascinating to follow.

Reich? Does he have an app in to be on Hillary's flying monkey crew?.
Nice non-partisan point of view, wasn't Stephanopoulos available?

Reich is endorsing Sanders.

Vlad wrote:You know what really pisses me off though? These mod Nazis who merge threads.

Sure, let's go to page 297 to discuss today's events. Who takes message boards this seriously?

Fuckers.

Wait till Trump is president. We'll be all hunger games up in here and he'll convince us it's good. These Nazi miss will look like Mr. Rogers compared to your district disciplinarian and attitude adjuster.

Turtleneck wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:

Reich? Does he have an app in to be on Hillary's flying monkey crew?.
Nice non-partisan point of view, wasn't Stephanopoulos available?

Reich is endorsing Sanders.

The third Reich endorses Trump

DWags wrote:

Vlad wrote:You know what really pisses me off though? These mod Nazis who merge threads.

Sure, let's go to page 297 to discuss today's events. Who takes message boards this seriously?

Fuckers.

Wait till Trump is president. We'll be all hunger games up in here and he'll convince us it's good.  These Nazi miss will look like Mr. Rogers compared to your district disciplinarian and attitude adjuster.

I don't think Trump is gonna do any of the things he says he's gonna do. He's here to blow up the GOP, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Clintons put him up to this.

As far as Trump is concerned, the man has been a public figure for 40 years now. He's been vetted, so I'm not worried about what he's been saying. In fact, I'm enjoying it.

Vlad wrote:

DWags wrote:

Wait till Trump is president. We'll be all hunger games up in here and he'll convince us it's good.  These Nazi miss will look like Mr. Rogers compared to your district disciplinarian and attitude adjuster.

I don't think Trump is gonna do any of the things he says he's gonna do. He's here to blow up the GOP, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Clintons put him up to this.

As far as Trump is concerned, the man has been a public figure for 40 years now. He's been vetted, so I'm not worried about what he's been saying. In fact, I'm enjoying it.

But I honestly don't think he likes "the blacks". I'm not very sure he likes the Browns or Jews either.

He's cool with the oranges.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

"Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump would be an extremely close election, but the economy still favors a Clinton win.
That's according to the Moody's Analytics Presidential Election Model, which has correctly predicted the last nine elections.
As the old adage goes, "it's the economy, stupid." Right now Moody's says the solid U.S. economy throws the election to Democrats -- regardless of whether the nominee is Clinton or Bernie Sanders."

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/29/news/economy/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-2016-gas/

I'm sure that the dumbest person at Moody's is smarter than me, but I think they're full of crap.  The economy is not that good. Non-farm employment has been tanking for four months, and had only been propped up by redefining unemployment and private sector wage growth is a stagnant 2%,

On top of that, the Democrats haven't strung together three consecutive terms in the executive branch since HST rode in on FDR's coattails. History and the economy favor the Pubs and they're screwing it up.

Redefining unemployment? That seems like a common misconception that I'd like to correct. Unemployment has been calculated largely the same way for years. It's not like Obama called his good buddy's down at the BLS and said "hey we gotta rig this to make it look better for me aight"

Now, unemployment numbers are misleading in that they don't include people that have been out of work for a certain amount of time or those that aren't looking for employment. But it has always been that way. Or, at least, by always I mean that they have been for whatever relevant to today time period that you want. I'm sure at some point in the past that wasn't the case.

The reason that's misleading is that most would agree that there are more long term unemployed people than there have been in years past. The debate would be to what degree that makes a difference, considering that there are also more employed people than in years past. I'm not really arguing either way. Just pointing out that that's where I think you got that there's a controversy with unemployment. Not that the way they are calculated was changed.

Vlad wrote:

DWags wrote:

Wait till Trump is president. We'll be all hunger games up in here and he'll convince us it's good.  These Nazi miss will look like Mr. Rogers compared to your district disciplinarian and attitude adjuster.

I don't think Trump is gonna do any of the things he says he's gonna do. He's here to blow up the GOP, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Clintons put him up to this.

As far as Trump is concerned, the man has been a public figure for 40 years now. He's been vetted, so I'm not worried about what he's been saying. In fact, I'm enjoying it.

Clintons did not put him up to it.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/how-donald-trump-did-it-213581

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:
I'm sure that the dumbest person at Moody's is smarter than me, but I think they're full of crap.  The economy is not that good. Non-farm employment has been tanking for four months, and had only been propped up by redefining unemployment and private sector wage growth is a stagnant 2%,

On top of that, the Democrats haven't strung together three consecutive terms in the executive branch since HST rode in on FDR's coattails. History and the economy favor the Pubs and they're screwing it up.

Redefining unemployment? That seems like a common misconception that I'd like to correct. Unemployment has been calculated largely the same way for years. It's not like Obama called his good buddy's down at the BLS and said "hey we gotta rig this to make it look better for me aight"

Now, unemployment numbers are misleading in that they don't include people that have been out of work for a certain amount of time or those that aren't looking for employment. But it has always been that way. Or, at least, by always I mean that they have been for whatever relevant to today time period that you want. I'm sure at some point in the past that wasn't the case.

The reason that's misleading is that most would agree that there are more long term unemployed people than there have been in years past. The debate would be to what degree that makes a difference, considering that there are also more employed people than in years past. I'm not really arguing either way. Just pointing out that that's where I think you got that there's a controversy with unemployment. Not that the way they are calculated was changed.

OK, you got me. Thanks for the correction but you obviously knew what I was getting at.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Redefining unemployment? That seems like a common misconception that I'd like to correct. Unemployment has been calculated largely the same way for years. It's not like Obama called his good buddy's down at the BLS and said "hey we gotta rig this to make it look better for me aight"

Now, unemployment numbers are misleading in that they don't include people that have been out of work for a certain amount of time or those that aren't looking for employment. But it has always been that way. Or, at least, by always I mean that they have been for whatever relevant to today time period that you want. I'm sure at some point in the past that wasn't the case.

The reason that's misleading is that most would agree that there are more long term unemployed people than there have been in years past. The debate would be to what degree that makes a difference, considering that there are also more employed people than in years past. I'm not really arguing either way. Just pointing out that that's where I think you got that there's a controversy with unemployment. Not that the way they are calculated was changed.

OK, you got me. Thanks for the correction but you obviously knew what I was getting at.

Oh I know. I didn't mean it like a bad thing. I hear things like that all the time and I think sometimes things just get twisted around until it sounds a lot worse than it is. which is actually why I think we are at where we're at with trump. People have been beaten to death being told constantly that everything is burning to hell (when it really isnt) and now they are turning to a thing they don't know and don't fully understand. Just like when all the mobsters in batman accepted the joker.

Travis, will you be our Batman and save us?

Turtleneck wrote:Travis, will you be our Batman and save us?

I'm the hero America deserves but not the one it needs right now.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Travis, will you be our Batman and save us?

I'm the hero America deserves but not the one it needs right now.

I was just kidding. Please quit America forever.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm the hero America deserves but not the one it needs right now.

I was just kidding. Please quit America forever.

:(

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I was just kidding. Please quit America forever.

:(

I'll pay for both you and The Dude to leave. Forever.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

:(

I'll pay for both you and The Dude to leave. Forever.

More green less blue. I like it

Rocinante wrote:I listened to rush today for the lulz and that motherfucker is beside himself. All his callers are like "yeah we support Trump and we want to break the GOP." And he's all, "well, I'm sure there are many people out there who thought Mitt's speech was good and I'd love to hear from them." And they're all "no, seriously, fuck the GOP, they don't care about us, we want Trump."

Classic.

Yep. The DC politicos have no idea what life is like outside the bubble and neither does the RNC. The GOP establishment should have seen this coming..the tea party was the first warning. There is no difference between the establishment Dems and Repubs in a lot of people's eyes and that's why Trump is killing it. The RNC is tone deaf. They've ran two high character moral guys and got crushed in the last two generals. They want to do it again this year instead of rally around a guy who'd win the general with ease.

It's mind boggling how stupid the RNC is. Trump is a godsend to them..someone who is growing the party and inspiring people. People flock to him for what they think he will do in office similar to Obamas movement in 2008.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I'll pay for both you and The Dude to leave. Forever.

More green less blue. I like it

Can you go with them?

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

:(

I'll pay for both you and The Dude to leave. Forever.

Do we have to go together?

The_Dude wrote:

Rocinante wrote:I listened to rush today for the lulz and that motherfucker is beside himself. All his callers are like "yeah we support Trump and we want to break the GOP." And he's all, "well, I'm sure there are many people out there who thought Mitt's speech was good and I'd love to hear from them." And they're all "no, seriously, fuck the GOP, they don't care about us, we want Trump."

Classic.

Yep. The DC politicos have no idea what life is like outside the bubble and neither does the RNC. The GOP establishment should have seen this coming..the tea party was the first warning. There is no difference between the establishment Dems and Repubs in a lot of people's eyes and that's why Trump is killing it. The RNC is tone deaf. They've ran two high character moral guys and got crushed in the last two generals. They want to do it again this year instead of rally around a guy who'd win the general with ease.

It's mind boggling how stupid the RNC is. Trump is a godsend to them..someone who is growing the party and inspiring people. People flock to him for what they think he will do in office similar to Obamas movement in 2008.

He is just not a godsend to things like free speech.

Turtleneck wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

More green less blue. I like it

Can you go with them?

Why would you want that turtleneck?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I'll pay for both you and The Dude to leave. Forever.

Do we have to go forever?

Yes. I'm not paying so you can go on an extended vacation.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Can you go with them?

Why would you want that turtleneck?

I just felt like saying it. You can stay.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Do we have to go forever?

Yes. I'm not paying so you can go on an extended vacation.

I'm sorry, I edited it. You're too quick silly. Please respond again.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Yes. I'm not paying so you can go on an extended vacation.

I'm sorry, I edited it. You're too quick silly. Please respond again.

Together? No. You both just need to leave. I do not care where either of you go. Actually, The Dude already settled on Canada. You might want to pick another continent.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm sorry, I edited it. You're too quick silly. Please respond again.

Together? No. You both just need to leave. I do not care where either of you go. Actually, The Dude already settled on Canada. You might want to pick another continent.

Oh okay.

Well, I'm not going.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Together? No. You both just need to leave. I do not care where either of you go. Actually, The Dude already settled on Canada. You might want to pick another continent.

Oh okay.

Well, I'm not going.

Fine. Continue to ruin it for the rest of us. That is the selfish Travis I know.

How is your day going? I hope it is going well. What have you been up to? Working at home? Also, if more jobs come back to the U.S. and more goods are produced domestically, will wages have to increase to offset rising prices and possible under consumption?

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Oh okay.

Well, I'm not going.

Fine. Continue to ruin it for the rest of us. That is the selfish Travis I know.

How is your day going? I hope it is going well. What have you been up to? Working at home? Also, if more jobs come back to the U.S. and more goods are produced domestically, will wages have to increase to offset rising prices and possible under consumption?

Im doing good. I worked at the office today. It was fine. How are you? Frankly I don't think that jobs will ever come back in a ultra significant way. Globalization isn't going anywhere and its best if people adapt and learn how to do jobs that work within that system. That said, if that did happen, yeah wages would have to trend up given that prices would rise dramatically. Of course, the rise in prices would be immediate (likely before costs even really go up) while the rise in wages would take quite some more time. It's weird to think that if jobs came back here all of a sudden in mass (which, they won't) that it could throw us into recession if misplayed, but it easily could.

Vlad wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:


The other candidates didn't go after Trump soon enough. Even if Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz all gang up on Donnie now, it's going to take 2-3 weeks for anything to sink in on the Undecideds. That won't be in time to stop him. I still suspect something happens at the convention. Personally, I think it's too late for this election. They ought to take their licks, let Trump face Hillary, then he'll get beat and the Party can regroup for '20 with someone everyone can rally around.
Like I said in another thread, the Rs have been just as bad at picking a viable nominee nationally as the Ds have been in Michigan.

The problem with going after Trump so far has been that it only galvanizes his supporters even more. They're diggin' in deeper.

Maybe a continued offensive will have an impact, but even that would require a unified approach. And if the leaders start splintering (see Christie, Jan Brewer, etc.)....Yeah, they're fucked.

And yes, I'm enjoying this. A lot.

The GOP is only fucked if they don't nominate trump. The presidency is they're if they'd rally around him but they are doing the opposite.

I'm enjoying trump blowing up the system lol. If the RNC does anything but nominate trump its close to 100% they lose the general.

Travis, I agree that jobs will not come back. At least not to any great degree. However, an increasing number of Americans are starting to reject globalization. When it comes to the global economy, and especially foreign trade, Trump and Sanders have remarkably similar views. When I see Trump do fairly well among educated voters it tells me he is grabbing the attention of people who fear more than Mexicans and Muslims. They have a general fear of the unknown. They fear others but they also fear economic displacement and uneasiness about the future. This is all very funny because we helped shape processes of globalization and imposed it on the rest of the world. Now Americans are quite frightened of what globalization has created.

Live on Fox from the Fox in Detroit right now.

The_Dude wrote:

Vlad wrote:

The problem with going after Trump so far has been that it only galvanizes his supporters even more. They're diggin' in deeper.

Maybe a continued offensive will have an impact, but even that would require a unified approach.  And if the leaders start splintering (see Christie, Jan Brewer, etc.)....Yeah, they're fucked.

And yes, I'm enjoying this. A lot.  

The GOP is only fucked if they don't nominate trump. The presidency is they're if they'd rally around him but they are doing the opposite.

I'm enjoying trump blowing up the system lol. If the RNC does anything but nominate trump its close to 100% they lose the general.

I am glad you enjoy a society where free speech, freedom of assembly, and a free and independent media are not thought to necessary or even desirable.

Speaking of who can beat Clinton. Just saying...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

Turtleneck wrote:Speaking of who can beat Clinton. Just saying...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

Intrigued

Turtleneck wrote:Speaking of who can beat Clinton. Just saying...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

I'd strongly consider voting for Kasich if that were an option.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Speaking of who can beat Clinton. Just saying...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

I'd strongly consider voting for Kasich if that were an option.

Vote for him in the primary. He will be on the ballot.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'd strongly consider voting for Kasich if that were an option.

Vote for him in the primary. He will be on the ballot.

Thanks turtleneck. I meant in the general tho