Realcent.org

I do wonder if Trump with his party switching might be the US's "Belinda Stronach"
and he's a trojan horse sabotaging the Republican party from the inside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_S ... h.27s_move

I liked what coal miner Jordan Bridges in WV said yesterday (starting at 1:30)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05 ... -off-jobs/

Well let’s just put it this way. Hillary Clinton says we’re going to shut you down. Bernie Sanders says the same thing. Then you got Donald Trump says we’re going to put you back to work. We’re going to save your jobs. I mean that means a whole lot to us. Whether it’s true or not, the man is the first one who says we’re going to put you back to work. So I’m going to support him. I mean if he goes back on his word, then we got another election in four years, we’ll vote him out.

Since Cruz and Kasich dropped out, "outsider non-politician" Trump has announced or hinted at "the federal government can't allow states to legalize marijuana" Chris Christie for Attorney General and 9/11 broken record and "we should spy on every citizen and carpet bomb the middle east" Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of Homeland Security. He also changed his mind about raising the minimum wage and hired 17-year Goldman Sachs partner, former George Soros employee, and current hedge fund CEO/manager Steven Mnuchin as his national finance chairman for his fundraising operations (remember how he so often criticized Cruz for being married to a Goldman exec?). His top foreign policy advisor is former Blackwater executive Joseph Schmitz, who was forced out of his DoD Inspector General position amid allegations of protecting high-level pentagon officials in the Bush administration and turning a blind eye to Rumsfeld's shenanigans. Some libertarians are still trying to convince themselves that everything else about Trump can be ignored because he appears to offer a foreign policy of peace, but don't forget his response to Ron Paul's call for a foreign policy of nonintervention: "He should be ignored: @RonPaul's foreign policy is a dream come true for our enemies." Despite convincing a big chunk of the American population of the contrary, Trump is as much or more a politician than any other candidate, and is surrounding himself with status quo big government advisors.

natsb88 wrote:Since Cruz and Kasich dropped out, "outsider non-politician" Trump has announced or hinted at "the federal government can't allow states to legalize marijuana" Chris Christie for Attorney General and 9/11 broken record and "we should spy on every citizen and carpet bomb the middle east" Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of Homeland Security. He also changed his mind about raising the minimum wage and hired 17-year Goldman Sachs partner, former George Soros employee, and current hedge fund CEO/manager Steven Mnuchin as his national finance chairman for his fundraising operations (remember how he so often criticized Cruz for being married to a Goldman exec?). His top foreign policy advisor is former Blackwater executive Joseph Schmitz, who was forced out of his DoD Inspector General position amid allegations of protecting high-level pentagon officials in the Bush administration and turning a blind eye to Rumsfeld's shenanigans. Some libertarians are still trying to convince themselves that everything else about Trump can be ignored because he appears to offer a foreign policy of peace, but don't forget his response to Ron Paul's call for a foreign policy of nonintervention: "He should be ignored: @RonPaul's foreign policy is a dream come true for our enemies." Despite convincing a big chunk of the American population of the contrary, Trump is as much or more a politician than any other candidate, and is surrounding himself with status quo big government advisors.

Since Jesus Christ is not running this year, I will vote for Trump. There has never been political purity and there never will be.
This much you can be assured. Your facts are wrong, you don't know the whole truth, and you never will.

No one is capable of having an informed opinion because we will never know the facts. Sane human beings will never debate or argue will you because they hopefully realize that they will be arguing around facts that are unknown.

Your libertarian dream will never come true. Our president will always be politically and big business connected. It's the way of the world.

natsb88 wrote:Oh, and Trump would lose to Hillary anyway.

end rant

.

Wanna put $100 on it?

Thogey wrote:Your libertarian dream will never come true. Our president will always be politically and big business connected. It's the way of the world.

Probably. It would only take one election of people voting for somebody they actually want to be president to shake things up though. Trump has less than 42% of the popular vote on the GOP side, Hillary less than 57% on the dem side. Sadly most fall for the lesser of two evils / "wasting" your vote narrative come November and just vote red or blue regardless of how awful the candidate is. The two party system exists because the American people either fall in line or stay home. Left vs. right means less each year. Hillary and Trump have more in common than differences.

Thogey wrote:

natsb88 wrote:Oh, and Trump would lose to Hillary anyway.

end rant

.

Wanna put $100 on it?

We have two potentially messy conventions to get through before we can make it official. For the record, I think Trump would be slightly less bad than Hillary in certain areas, but won't vote for either. The way Hillary is leading on the dem side, despite a huge deficit of ground support, the Benghazi baggage, and an ongoing FBI investigation, makes me think she is the chosen one.

Slightly less bad
I'm glad your sitting the election out nate

If Trump or Hillary gets bumped it's a push.

Take it nate, $100 even odds. Take the bet!

I'm serious. Take the bet. Is the number too low? Wanna go $500 $1000?

Dude I know you gamble and you just posted another reason why you think Clinton will win.

Take the bet.

I'm 100% in for Trump. He practically lead the GOP primaries since he declared he was running. He took out the 16 other GOP candidates. Donald Trump doesn't know the meaning of the term, Politically Correct.

Put up a Trump yard sign last Friday after he came to Nebraska. It was stolen by Monday. I went to get a replacement, and the nice Trump folks told me they were surprised that it lasted 3 days.

Edit: When I put out the new Trump sign yesterday, the school down the street was letting out. 5th or 6th graders were yelling at me/my house that "Trump sucks! Boo!". I just waved. My tax dollars are educating those kids.

I would also bet 100 that trump beats hillary. Ive generally been right there with nates mindset on third parties, have always voted that way, but these two are different on a few keys issues and I am in a swingish state so Ill be voting for one of the major two parties for the first time. For me it boils down to who I want to sway the supreme court (one dead already several very old) and the fact only 1 of the two seems to acknowledge we need a sustainable economy at all.

Thogey wrote:Slightly less bad

You can laugh all you want, but it's true.

Trump and Hillary both want an "assault weapons" ban and a federally mandated waiting period for gun purchases. (Hillary of course wants a lot more).

Trump and Hillary both want government-run universal healthcare. Think about that. Obamacare was designed by Democrats to fail after a few years so Democrats could say "we tried to work with insurance companies and hospitals but they're just too greedy, we need the government to take over" and try to push universal healthcare. Now we have a presumptive GOP nominee who supports government-run healthcare anyway. Might as well just hand it over.

Trump and Hillary both want more progressive income taxes. Trump also wants huge tariffs on imports from China to "bring back jobs." It may boost some domestic manufacturing, but only because it would artificially increase prices by 50%. We're talking consumables, household goods, electronics... this hurts the lower and middle class more than a relatively small number of new jobs will offset. All that new government revenue from tariffs would be paid by the end consumer, not China. Tariffs would hurt the same segment that Hillary's higher minimum wage would (and Trump put a higher minimum wage back on the table after previously opposing it).

Trump and Hillary both support domestic spying and warrantless surveillance and data collection. Trump has called for increased government control over the internet, including the ability to censor/block websites the government considers "dangerous" and having the ability to shut down internet access (the proverbial "internet killswitch"). Trump and Hillary both support aggressive law enforcement and militarization of local police. Trump's deportation dreams would require a "halt and show your papers" approach.

Trump and Hillary both support torture and indefinite detention at Guantanamo. Trump said he would send Americans there if they were suspected of supporting Isis. Who needs due process?

Trump and Hillary are both crony capitalists. Hillary sells influence for huge speaking fees and donations to the Clinton foundation. Trump's family money came from building housing for the government and he's been greasing palms for almost 50 years. In the 70s he used political connections to get a 40-year tax abatement on the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Manhattan (boils down to getting tens of millions in tax subsidies). In 1985 he circumvented campaign finance laws (making donations from many separate Trump companies) to give $30k to Andrew Stein, a member of the board that makes zoning and land use decisions in Manhattan. In the 90s Trump tried to get the city of Bridgeport, CT to become "partners" with one of his companies so they could use their power of condemnation to take property from five existing businesses where he wanted to build a new amusement park. Also in the 90s he tried to use eminent domain to force a widow out of her house in Atlantic City after she refused to sell. He wanted to build a parking lot. Trump celebrated the 2005 SCOTUS ruling that determined eminent domain could be used for private development. He spent a decade in NY courts arguing that gambling would ruin the state because he didn't want any competition for his NJ casinos. Just a few examples...

Don't forget that prior to this election cycle Trump was very close with Bill and Hillary, saying "Hillary would have made a great president," and their daughters are friends. He has given lots of money to Democrats (including the Clintons). Trump has switched parties several times. He was a Democrat from 2001-2009, Republican 2009-2011, Independent in 2011, then switched back to Republican for this election cycle. I don't put much weight in party affiliation, but he's certainly not a consistent conservative.

I sympathize with the view that Trump is the lesser of two evils. I can't stomach the idea of actually cheering him on. He is "slightly less bad," at best.

natsb88 wrote:Trump and Hillary both want more progressive income taxes. Trump also wants huge tariffs on imports from China to "bring back jobs." It may boost some domestic manufacturing, but only because it would artificially increase prices by 50%. We're talking consumables, household goods, electronics... this hurts the lower and middle class more than a relatively small number of new jobs will offset. All that new government revenue from tariffs would be paid by the end consumer, not China.

Actually china would be paying for it as well, as it driving consumer goods involved higher. What do we do instead? The left likes to point to the ultra wealthy holding a higher percentage of the wealth then the past but the truth is the west in general is loosing its wealth overall and this is the bigger issue. Globalization will only continue on this track. Tariffs cant save us from it but seems to me they could slow the tide a bit and retain more wealth here even if pour increased production was mainly only viable selling here. The monies brought in from tariffs could easily go to tax breaks for the same middle and lower class you say will be most affected.

What do you think we should do instead though? We also have robots on the horizon poised to potentially do a range of jobs humans do now. Ignoring our other economic and dollar issues what will the buying power of the lower and middle class be in 20-30 years as globilization continues and the third world produces more and more? It is my understanding real wages havent risen to much since the late 70s, this seems driven by this bleeding of manufacturing and the rise of the third world to me. Wouldnt a bit of isolationism preserve us just a bit better?

To be clear Im not saying I think trump will relate to these issues terribly well but they are atleast on his radar and its one of the things I like about him. The US doesnt need to stay on top of the world, but we should stay at OUR best within this world and protect ourselves while doing it. My take anyway.

Hey Thogey, I'll take the 100 dollar Hillary bet if you are willing to do it with me. I can't stand her, but agree generally with Nate about Trump. I do think that Hillary is the chosen one, so when when it gets in and I feel sick at least I will be 100 bucks richer. It will be like a little Pepto-Bismol for my wrenching guts. If I lose I will consider it the price for the entertainment that will follow. It will be mostly tragedy and farce no matter who gets the role, but Trump is better at comedy.

natsb88 wrote:

Thogey wrote:Slightly less bad

You can laugh all you want, but it's true.

Trump and Hillary both want an "assault weapons" ban and a federally mandated waiting period for gun purchases. (Hillary of course wants a lot more).

Trump and Hillary both want government-run universal healthcare. Think about that. Obamacare was designed by Democrats to fail after a few years so Democrats could say "we tried to work with insurance companies and hospitals but they're just too greedy, we need the government to take over" and try to push universal healthcare. Now we have a presumptive GOP nominee who supports government-run healthcare anyway. Might as well just hand it over.

Trump and Hillary both want more progressive income taxes. Trump also wants huge tariffs on imports from China to "bring back jobs." It may boost some domestic manufacturing, but only because it would artificially increase prices by 50%. We're talking consumables, household goods, electronics... this hurts the lower and middle class more than a relatively small number of new jobs will offset. All that new government revenue from tariffs would be paid by the end consumer, not China. Tariffs would hurt the same segment that Hillary's higher minimum wage would (and Trump put a higher minimum wage back on the table after previously opposing it).

Trump and Hillary both support domestic spying and warrantless surveillance and data collection. Trump has called for increased government control over the internet, including the ability to censor/block websites the government considers "dangerous" and having the ability to shut down internet access (the proverbial "internet killswitch"). Trump and Hillary both support aggressive law enforcement and militarization of local police. Trump's deportation dreams would require a "halt and show your papers" approach.

Trump and Hillary both support torture and indefinite detention at Guantanamo. Trump said he would send Americans there if they were suspected of supporting Isis. Who needs due process?

Trump and Hillary are both crony capitalists. Hillary sells influence for huge speaking fees and donations to the Clinton foundation. Trump's family money came from building housing for the government and he's been greasing palms for almost 50 years. In the 70s he used political connections to get a 40-year tax abatement on the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Manhattan (boils down to getting tens of millions in tax subsidies). In 1985 he circumvented campaign finance laws (making donations from many separate Trump companies) to give $30k to Andrew Stein, a member of the board that makes zoning and land use decisions in Manhattan. In the 90s Trump tried to get the city of Bridgeport, CT to become "partners" with one of his companies so they could use their power of condemnation to take property from five existing businesses where he wanted to build a new amusement park. Also in the 90s he tried to use eminent domain to force a widow out of her house in Atlantic City after she refused to sell. He wanted to build a parking lot. Trump celebrated the 2005 SCOTUS ruling that determined eminent domain could be used for private development. He spent a decade in NY courts arguing that gambling would ruin the state because he didn't want any competition for his NJ casinos. Just a few examples...

Don't forget that prior to this election cycle Trump was very close with Bill and Hillary, saying "Hillary would have made a great president," and their daughters are friends. He has given lots of money to Democrats (including the Clintons). Trump has switched parties several times. He was a Democrat from 2001-2009, Republican 2009-2011, Independent in 2011, then switched back to Republican for this election cycle. I don't put much weight in party affiliation, but he's certainly not a consistent conservative.

I sympathize with the view that Trump is the lesser of two evils. I can't stomach the idea of actually cheering him on. He is "slightly less bad," at best.

great post nate

trump would lose to hitlary if the election was today

BUT trump has 6 months to get his policies fine tuned and pull those independent voters in

hes also got a chance to pull in bernie voters who will no doubt be upset when the hil gets the nomination

voter turnout is key

careful not to bash on 3rd party voters

its folks that dont even bother to turn out that will give the election to the dems - not those of us that vote for someone other than trump...

ETA: whats with the buddy-buddy towards christie ?

i guess i considered him establishment - exactly what trump was against and we are fed up with ?

popular vote can do all it wants with regards to voting for trump (or not)... if you think electoral college (those jags that actually determine the president) will seriously vote trump into office you have another thing comin... quite literally at this point the only way we don't have hil on the hill is if the GOP shoe strings a different nom in (getting dangerously close to impossible), or we have a third party nominee worth a s%^& come out of the woodwork

rsk1963 wrote:popular vote can do all it wants with regards to voting for trump (or not)... if you think electoral college (those jags that actually determine the president) will seriously vote trump into office you have another thing comin...

That is with the assumption that Trump isn't good friends with the GOP higher ups. Anyone that watched the apprentice or the debates can see, is Trump is an actor. Everything about his lack of PC, his stupid comments, it is ALL part of the show. When he signs on the dotted line behind closed doors, he will SOOO get elected by the electoral college. Businesses/big money has run politics for 30 if not 130 years. Trump is just the crown jewel of that system.

And all he has to do is shake his right hand long enough over the magic hat to distract the sheeple, while he shakes hands with both parties on the left. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Trump actually BOUGHT this presidency. Maybe for 50 million. Maybe for 500 million. He is a keen observer and knows the white house is a golden goose. Just think of the rent HE will charge the secret service for protecting all his mansions!!!! But that is pennies compared to what he'll milk after his term of office. He's friends with the Clintons, he has their playbook!!

Here is my prediction: Trump gets GOP nom. Hil gets Dema nom. And between 2 weeks and three months before election day, Hillary's investigations and all either get so hot that she loses 1/3 her base, thus, loses. Or that she flat out has to step down and Trump gets to ride a La-Z-boy across the finish line.

And if Trump does a single thing to benefit the common American, it is ONLY so that he can get re-elected without the possibility of a surprise fight.

I am sorry, but I pitty anyone that really does believe Trump is even 10% better than Hillary. I believe he is potentially 10 Times worse. I can see Trump actually wrapping America up like a Birthday present and handing us over to China to repay our debt to them, and doing it in exchange for some protected status or guaranteed business position by the PRC. Maybe they will give him Macau: Gambling capitol of Asia as his 30 pieces of silver.

I called every president that won since 2000 correctly. I probably just got lucky lol, but Im actually surprised so many of you think trump cant win. Keep in mind no matter what polling suggests today only election day matters and historically a few or part of a % of the left wont be so fired up to win after having a dem for so long and more on the right will bother to make it to the polls for the same reason. Trump thus far has been defined by his opponents and it hasnt mattered, with multiples more spent to target him directly then he has spent. Hes about to more fully start defining himself. If youve been watching his speeches he is alot more intelligent and nuanced then most sources portray him as. People arent ready for a more sensible pick like Gary Johnson, I wish they were. If a dem wins though go look at how many supreme court justices they will replace, enough to re shape several major things the supreme court has ruled on. This isnt a black and white election as most have been in my life for this reason alone.

then theres this, a short interesting read.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/polit ... 97-and-99/

"A political science professor who claims his statistical model has correctly predicted the results of every election except for one in the last 104 years has forecast that the odds of Donald Trump becoming America’s next president currently range from 97 percent to 99 percent."

blackrabbit wrote:Hey Thogey, I'll take the 100 dollar Hillary bet if you are willing to do it with me. I can't stand her, but agree generally with Nate about Trump. I do think that Hillary is the chosen one, so when when it gets in and I feel sick at least I will be 100 bucks richer. It will be like a little Pepto-Bismol for my wrenching guts. If I lose I will consider it the price for the entertainment that will follow. It will be mostly tragedy and farce no matter who gets the role, but Trump is better at comedy.

You post "we have a bet" and we have a bet.

One rule, trump vs hillary only. no major 3rd, or if one drops out the bets a push.

This is a good deal for you. current lines have hillary at about -225 (you have to bet 225 to win 100)

Thanks Thogey, "we have a bet"!

I was going to stipulate the Trump vs. Hillary rule anyway.
I hope Hillary gets knocked out and it is a push. That would be much better than winning the bet!

I’m for Trump in this historic election year. His “winning” (sans Tiger Blood) has impressed me. As the general election draws near, more and more issues will surely become apparent and imminent. I believe many of the negatives that Nate mentions (healthcare, taxes, spying, torture, cronyism) as well as the mediated ones (walls, bombings, bans, supremacy, misogyny) are the products of campaign spins or manipulations. Exaggeration and hyperbole – that’s all it is. It’s not easy being a non-politically correct candidate in this day and age. I say Let Him Say What He Will. We’ll have to get used to a President who doesn’t require every utterance to be an Executive Order. It should be entertaining, and comedy or humor always seems to accompany love of country.

What matters are who he hires, appoints, nominates, approves, and contracts. Congress and the Supremes need to be on board. Advisors need to be picked carefully. The lobbyists, think tankers, and mega-donors aren’t going to go away. Some will rise in influence while others decline. An “establishment” will persist, and the best we can hope for is that respect for principled opposition will emerge. Trump seems to be moving in a more open and tolerant direction, but he’s a counter-puncher and he hits hard. I for one have nothing against hard hitting or even being boorish and vulgar, and can even write off narcissism and egomania. My hope is that things won’t get too dirty between now and then so that some kind of reflected appraisal process creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that dooms any chances of success.

list of potential supreme court nominees out...

gonna take some time to read up on each, but here they are

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/po ... 9611950725

Should I just pay you the 100 bucks now Thogey? The Democons seem to be crumbling fast. I guess I should hold off as I am sure there will be plenty more surprises in store. I have heard a theory that Hillery will get tossed and her VP will run. It almost seems like both parties have crossed some weird threshold and are really being transformed. That seems good to me.

This was an interesting thread to read the range of views from many people as well as over time
My opinions have changed dramatically since the first of the year and for various reasons. I normally don't like the long US election cycle but this is one of those years where it has definitely allowed the uncovering of more of the inner side of candidates, and that was needed.

Trump is definitely a "be careful what you ask for because you might get more than you thought" candidate. That said, at this point he actually has enough of a shot at winning the general that he might ought to be worried about how low Hillary is willing to go to win (and I don't think there is any lower limit to that).

I'll still take some action on this. Even odds.

I kinda still think they are going to dirty trick/electronic vote count Hillery in there. The mainstream media is trying to convince their audiences that the Bernie people will vote for her, and that she has more support than she does. They will probably come out with a theme that the exit polls are not accurate when the election is nigh. I am still an independent and won't vote for either parties, but this is the first presidential election that I thought the Republican was better than the Democrat.