This Trump mania.

[mneilmont]

Trump is the Ross Perot of 2016, without Perot's intelligence. If he's the best the GOP could come up with, they may as well disband the party. As for the Democrats, it seems as though Hillary would have to be caught in bed with a pony before they'd honestly consider anyone else - the "I'm Ready for Hillary" stuff started showing up around here on January 22nd 2013. I can't believe there isn't somebody better in one of the parties that wouldn't be better than the current fool's parade.

Pop, beginning to lose faith in anything you say. Ross is more intelligent than The Don? Most learned people do not belittle those with background at Wharton School of Business. It is top shelf for those in the field of business. Where do you get your credentials that would remotely suggest to the rest of us that you bring something to the table in the discussion about his intelligence? Not discounting you, only that you need credentials for validity.

I actually voted for Ross. So much of the stuff he predicted has come to pass. He was in the lead of a three way race until he got a little paranoid about his daughter. Are you suggesting Trump will follow suite? History would suggest that he has a great ledger on closing deals.

 

[bornaneer]

Lol, Yeah what a stretch that I said fans of Rush and Fox and Friends are Trump supporters, that is controversial and makes me an idiot? MSNBC has him on regularly too, so what? He ain't getting support from Rachel Maddows fans.

The reason I called you an idiot is because you will spew the same Rush and Fox nonsense regardless of who the Republican nominee will be. You probably believe that Rush and Fox were responsible for 12 years of repubs from 80 to 92 ( it would have been 16 years except for Perot) and 8 years from2000 to 2008.

 

[mneilmont]

Trump is trying to catch Cruz in the cray cray race.

"It seems a government shutdown over defunding Planned Parenthood is all but inevitable now. That is, unless Donald Trump flames out in the next few months. Because The Donald is not going to be left out of any ridiculous, extremist thing his competitors come up with.
Donald Trump said the Republican-led Congress should take the plunge, appearing Monday on conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt's show, where Trump was told the “only way to get rid of Planned Parenthood money” is to “shut the government down” when money expires on Sept. 30.

“Would you support that?” Hewitt asked.

“I can tell you this: I would,” Trump responded.

Trump went on to praise rival Ted Cruz, saying that the only reason the last attempts at government shutdown were so disastrous was because Republicans "decided not to stick together. And they left a few people out there, like Ted Cruz." Trump and Cruz have actually been working on sort of a mutual admiration society. Over the weekend, Cruz heaped praise on Trump for "speaking out boldly and brashly and for focusing on illegal immigration." That's after the two met last month, and Trump came out of the meeting singing his gratitude for Cruz's agreement on immigration.
Dare we hope? Does Jesus love us this much? Trump/Cruz 2016!"

Liars should not rely on Jesus to bail your viral *** out.

 

[mneilmont]

I don't know, pretty much anyone but Hillary. Bill Clinton came out of nowhere, it could happen again.

Sorry, Moe. Bill Clinton will not pop out of the woodwork again. We have this thing called Constitution which ..... .

 

[Keyser76]

Sorry, Moe. Bill Clinton will not pop out of the woodwork again. We have this thing called Constitution which ..... .

Maybe another Obama will take her out. I'm sure he knew Bill couldn't run again.

 

[Keyser76]

The reason I called you an idiot is because you will spew the same Rush and Fox nonsense regardless of who the Republican nominee will be. You probably believe that Rush and Fox were responsible for 12 years of repubs from 80 to 92 ( it would have been 16 years except for Perot) and 8 years from2000 to 2008.

FNC started in 1996 and Rush in 88, and I guess I will spew Rush and Fox news nonsense seeing how Fox news is hosting your Debate and Rush, well lets just say Rush is urging the Donald to blow it up!

 

[moe]

Sorry, Moe. Bill Clinton will not pop out of the woodwork again. We have this thing called Constitution which ..... .

Huh? lol I'm talking about another Dem candidate coming out of obscurity not Bill Clinton running again wow smh.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Huh? lol I'm talking about another Dem candidate coming out of obscurity not Bill Clinton running again wow smh.

Take it easy on the geriatric racist former cop!

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Take it easy on the geriatric racist former cop!

That's hilarious.

 

[mneilmont]

Maybe another Obama will take her out. I'm sure he knew Bill couldn't run again.

How can you be sure? Coming from someone thinking there is another Obama - the world ain't that big. Tell me it ain't so.

 

[Popeer]

Pop, beginning to lose faith in anything you say. Ross is more intelligent than The Don? Most learned people do not belittle those with background at Wharton School of Business. It is top shelf for those in the field of business. Where do you get your credentials that would remotely suggest to the rest of us that you bring something to the table in the discussion about his intelligence? Not discounting you, only that you need credentials for validity.

I actually voted for Ross. So much of the stuff he predicted has come to pass. He was in the lead of a three way race until he got a little paranoid about his daughter. Are you suggesting Trump will follow suite? History would suggest that he has a great ledger on closing deals.

I base my criticism of his intelligence - or, more accurately, lack of same - on the stupid shite he says on almost a daily basis. Apparently Wharton doesn't teach the principle of "be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear."

 

[bornaneer]

I base my criticism of his intelligence - or, more accurately, lack of same - on the stupid shite he says on almost a daily basis. Apparently Wharton doesn't teach the principle of "be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear."

Just asking.....Give me examples of,"stupid shite he says on almost a daily basis".

 

[Mog]

If Trump is still in the race when the New Hampshire primary rolls around, I'll eat a bug. I mean, this is the guy that gave up his run 4 years ago so that he could focus on his reality TV show. How can you take him seriously?

Would love to have somebody else besides Hillary though, she is way to polarizing to the right and would be like still having Obama.

Back in 2008 I thought it'd be better if someone other than Clinton won the Democratic nomination because the Clinton name was so hated by the right, people would oppose whatever she attempted to do, good or bad, based on reflex. At this point I think the country is so polarized that it doesn't matter. Whoever wins will be literally Hitler to the opposing party no matter what they do.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Whoever wins will be literally Hitler to the opposing party no matter what they do.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

If Trump is still in the race when the New Hampshire primary rolls around, I'll eat a bug. I mean, this is the guy that gave up his run 4 years ago so that he could focus on his reality TV show. How can you take him seriously?

Back in 2008 I thought it'd be better if someone other than Clinton won the Democratic nomination because the Clinton name was so hated by the right, people would oppose whatever she attempted to do, good or bad, based on reflex. At this point I think the country is so polarized that it doesn't matter. Whoever wins will be figuratively Hitler to the opposing party no matter what they do.

FIFY. Agree with this wholeheartedly. Whether a D or R wins and regardless of which candidate wins, the country will still be polarized and it won't get any better.

 

[Mntneer]

If Trump is still in the race when the New Hampshire primary rolls around, I'll eat a bug. I mean, this is the guy that gave up his run 4 years ago so that he could focus on his reality TV show. How can you take him seriously?


Back in 2008 I thought it'd be better if someone other than Clinton won the Democratic nomination because the Clinton name was so hated by the right, people would oppose whatever she attempted to do, good or bad, based on reflex. At this point I think the country is so polarized that it doesn't matter. Whoever wins will be literally Hitler to the opposing party no matter what they do.

One story is he's running, drumming up support and focus and then will drop out to heavily support one of the other candidates. Such as Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

FIFY. Agree with this wholeheartedly. Whether a D or R wins and regardless of which candidate wins, the country will still be polarized and it won't get any better.

I disagree. I think if you get the right person who is willing to make concessions to the opposing side and work across the aisle, the current gap will be bridged rather quickly. I think in order to bridge the gap, we will need a balance by the house and senate, meaning if a Republican is elected, we need a Dem controlled house and Senate. This will force integration. If a Dem is elected, the GOP needs to maintain control. If either party has the trifecta, it probably won't get better. With that said, there are some candidates that will be very bad from a functioning Gov't standpoint. Trump/Bush/Clinton/Biden are all very bad choices if we want to heal this country.

 

[Mntneer]

I disagree. I think if you get the right person who is willing to make concessions to the opposing side and work across the aisle, the current gap will be bridged rather quickly. I think in order to bridge the gap, we will need a balance by the house and senate, meaning if a Republican is elected, we need a Dem controlled house and Senate. This will force integration. If a Dem is elected, the GOP needs to maintain control. If either party has the trifecta, it probably won't get better. With that said, there are some candidates that will be very bad from a functioning Gov't standpoint. Trump/Bush/Clinton/Biden are all very bad choices if we want to heal this country.

We need a Governor or Independent Business person (other than Trump). The reason why this nation went so long without electing a sitting Senator (or Congressmen) I think is in part because of their inability to work across those aisles. Governors have to most of the time to an extent, so they are more accustomed with having to lead.

 

[Mog]

I was attempting to be ironic in my usage there.

 

[WVUBRU]

We need a Governor or Independent Business person (other than Trump

Fully disagree. The wrong Governor or "independent business person" whatever that means could be a complete disaster.

It isn't the previous job the person has held. Yes, past history success in whatever a person does is an important consideration. But past history in an unrelated position is not a predictor of future success in politics. Not by a long shot.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

We need a Governor or Independent Business person (other than Trump). The reason why this nation went so long without electing a sitting Senator (or Congressmen) I think is in part because of their inability to work across those aisles. Governors have to most of the time to an extent, so they are more accustomed with having to lead.

Wholeheartedly agree.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Fully disagree. The wrong Governor or "independent business person" whatever that means could be a complete disaster.

It isn't the previous job the person has held. Yes, past history success in whatever a person does is an important consideration. But past history in an unrelated position is not a predictor of future success in politics. Not by a long shot.

I wouldn't call being a Gov an unrelated position. There are very much similarities between the two positions. Most importantly though is the leading part. If a sitting or previous Gov had success in their state that is one indicator. If they did it with a mixed state legislature, that is another very important piece. It indicates the individual knows how to navigate between the aisles to meet the objectives he set out to do. This is why I am very much a fan of Scott Walker and John Kasich.

 

[Mog]

The reason why this nation went so long without electing a sitting Senator (or Congressmen) I think is in part because of their inability to work across those aisles.

I think part of the issue is also that being in Congress forces someone to take a stand on national issues, which gives the opposition plenty of material for attack ads (which is exacerbated by poison pill amendments).

 

[Mntneer]

I think part of the issue is also that being in Congress forces someone to take a stand on national issues, which gives the opposition plenty of material for attack ads (which is exacerbated by poison pill amendments).

That and the whole "They voted against food for babies..." type of campaign rhetoric. We will see Ted Cruz pull this out of his hat at these debates, where his attempt to attach amendments to defund Planned Parenthood to legislation completely unrelated to it failed.

 

[WVUBRU]

I wouldn't call being a Gov an unrelated position. There are very much similarities between the two positions. Most importantly though is the leading part. If a sitting or previous Gov had success in their state that is one indicator. If they did it with a mixed state legislature, that is another very important piece. It indicates the individual knows how to navigate between the aisles to meet the objectives he set out to do. This is why I am very much a fan of Scott Walker and John Kasich.

I use the word "unrelated" as there are much different dynamics between states on how strong or weak the governor position is with the running of the state versus the job of President with the Congress and all the other parts of the Executive branch. Very different. Won't name names but we have had successful ex-Gov's as President and we have had complete disasters. Again, it is not the past positions on a resume that is an indicator.

I will agree going from the Senate or the House to President presents unique challenges due to current relationships.

 

[mule_eer]

I disagree. I think if you get the right person who is willing to make concessions to the opposing side and work across the aisle, the current gap will be bridged rather quickly. I think in order to bridge the gap, we will need a balance by the house and senate, meaning if a Republican is elected, we need a Dem controlled house and Senate. This will force integration. If a Dem is elected, the GOP needs to maintain control. If either party has the trifecta, it probably won't get better. With that said, there are some candidates that will be very bad from a functioning Gov't standpoint. Trump/Bush/Clinton/Biden are all very bad choices if we want to heal this country.

I'm not sure I would include Bush or Biden in that group, not meaning that I'm willing to endorse either candidate. Biden has been a deal maker in the past, and I think he understands the games that get played in the House and Senate as well as anyone. I think he could bridge the gap. He could also spend 80% of his presidency putting his foot in his mouth. I understand the family dynamic part of Bush, but I think he can work across the aisle.

The names I would add to your list are Huckabee, Cruz, and possibly Sanders.

 

[mneilmont]

I wouldn't call being a Gov an unrelated position. There are very much similarities between the two positions. Most importantly though is the leading part. If a sitting or previous Gov had success in their state that is one indicator. If they did it with a mixed state legislature, that is another very important piece. It indicates the individual knows how to navigate between the aisles to meet the objectives he set out to do. This is why I am very much a fan of Scott Walker and John Kasich.

What we need is a leader who can make a decision and bring members of both parties to the table. Governors normally(not always) attempt to have support from both sides to sell a program and put it into effect and stick with it.

In recent past, congressmen are so damned tied to the party. They can do a 180 overnight to stay in the good graces of party leadership who have "whipping" privileges. It would be extremely difficult to find congressmen who have displayed leadership qualities that would be preferred, IMO. If you want to suggest that congressional leaders of the parties would fill the bill, consider who has been in the positions over past years.

 

[mule_eer]

What we need is a leader who can make a decision and bring members of both parties to the table. Governors normally(not always) attempt to have support from both sides to sell a program and put it into effect and stick with it.

In recent past, congressmen are so damned tied to the party. They can do a 180 overnight to stay in the good graces of party leadership who have "whipping" privileges. It would be extremely difficult to find congressmen who have displayed leadership qualities that would be preferred, IMO. If you want to suggest that congressional leaders of the parties would fill the bill, consider who has been in the positions over past years.

I think there are exceptions to the congressional concerns you have. I think McCain fit the bill. I would think Lieberman would fit the profile too. You could also argue in favor of Joe Manchin. Those are some folks off the top of my head.

As far as executive experience goes, many former mayors and governors later run for House or Seante seats. And being a member of Congress does not necessarily imply that the person does not have leadership ability.

 

[mneilmont]

I think there are exceptions to the congressional concerns you have. I think McCain fit the bill. I would think Lieberman would fit the profile too. You could also argue in favor of Joe Manchin. Those are some folks off the top of my head.

As far as executive experience goes, many former mayors and governors later run for House or Seante seats. And being a member of Congress does not necessarily imply that the person does not have leadership ability.

I think the jury has already removed McCain from the potential list. Lieberman is not involved, and he and Manchin have shown their ability to be whipped by leadership. All three have gone against their party when their vote was not needed, but who did they lead to go with them? My Senator Graham does not count as he has shown himself to be a puppet for McCain. Lady Senator has followed at times.

"does not necessarily" would certainly be acceptable in the concept that there are exceptions to most offerings. I think there appears to be a history of those who promote out of state and local politics who run for congressional seats that loose their identity when they get to DC.

 

[Mntneer]

I think there are exceptions to the congressional concerns you have. I think McCain fit the bill. I would think Lieberman would fit the profile too. You could also argue in favor of Joe Manchin. Those are some folks off the top of my head.

As far as executive experience goes, many former mayors and governors later run for House or Seante seats. And being a member of Congress does not necessarily imply that the person does not have leadership ability.

Joe's young enough in the Senate not to be entrenched, and successful enough as a Gov to have a record to run on. He'd probably stand a decent chance in a national election but would never make it through the Dem primary.

 

[wvu2007]

I still think he's not going to get the nomination, and that he's in this more for self promotion than anything else.

But should he get the nomination, is there anything he can say or do to sway your vote? It would be damn near impossible for me, but I'm curious if his supporters are already set and that there is no positive movement for his candidacy from here on out.

Or could his populist bit win over new voters post primary.

I won't hate on you for this. But Trump has exceeded your expectations?

 

[dave]

Just give it more time. He will NOT be the GOP candidate (he will not win the primary). Don't get me wrong, I am thoroughly enjoying his "remarks" and I would love nothing more than for him to win the primary, but it won't happen.

Countrywrong again

 

[dave]

I'm willing to make a wager with anyone on here about Trump being the GOP nominee. Bornaneer and racist neil seem to be very confident in him winning.

Hahahaha

 

[mneilmont]

Hahahaha

Looks like Born had this covered from day one. Then you have the other side that would lose a bet on a rerun.

And a couple have gone totally silent. That is very pleasant.