Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ironcially Trump may win for the same reason Obama did in 2008

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ironcially Trump may win for the same reason Obama did in 2008

    How can that be you might ask? They're as different as day and night in terms of political ideology right, even if Trump (unlike his running mate) is not the usual classic pro-life conservative(ish) the R nominee usually is.

    In both cases there were serious questions as to whether or not Obama 2008 and Trump 2016 were qualified to be POTUS, in Trump's case because he never held political office of any sort, and in Obama's case because he came out of nowhere from a nice 2004 DNC speech and only had fractions of terms in the IL and US Senate. And in both cases their opponent (Hillary both times, then McCain in Obama's case) were seen as well qualified and seemingly groomed to be a Presidental contender for years. But there was one thing, one very very important factor that made all the difference in the world for Obama 2008 and there is a very good possibility it may put Trump over the top.

    Remember what the supporters of Obama 2008 were like compared to the ones for Hillary and later McCain (sure his running mate drew big excited crowds but in the end no one votes for VP) had? Hillary and McCain were certainly good, reasonably qualified candidates but their supporters were mostly "heh" about them. Obama meanwhile had huge excited crowds, and (yes here comes a Rocky III reference, deal with it) they were hungry!! So much so that he not only won quite convincingly but if you had told someone years ago that while we would sooner or later get a first black President (half black/biracial in Obama's case), he'd get three Confederate states they'd have said you were nuts.

    And that is what Trump has had going for him all this time, the reason he managed to beat over a dozen R contenders who by all accounts were the more traditional classic R candidate types and more reasonably qualified and why he is now very much nipping at Hillary's heels with the debates coming up in a few days. His crowds, his supporters are hungry!! Hell, Obama's supporters/base haven't been hungry since they put him in the White House. IOW, Hillary, like McCain 2008 just aren't hungry enough and have a "meh" feeling for their candidate to go out of their way to support and vote for their candidate like Obama 2008 did and like I believe will be the case for Trump 2016.

    http://oldpoliticals.com/ItemImages/.../36076_lg.jpeg

    If that button looks at all familiar (it's an anti-Bush 41 button from 1992), compare it to Hillary's probability of winning the White House in August 14, compared to just one month later. It looked like she'd clean Trumps clocks and towers out, now, eh, not so much.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/

    Here's a bonus Rocky analogy for ya, just for fun. I have no doubt Hillary's attitude towards Trump is just like Apollo's in the second movie. That is, in Hillary's view, what Trump did was an absolute miracle. He shouldn't have even had a chance but now, somehow, here he is. But of course only those right wing extremist looneys even bother with the R primarys, but now it's the real election and he will not last five minutes behind a debate podium with an experienced, professional politician like me!

    I guess we'll soon find out.
    Last edited by Estil; 09-23-2016, 08:35 AM.

  • #2
    I don't remember many of people's concerns about Obama the first time being serious. And the only one that was was inexperience.

    Trump concerns are serious. Openly racist, openly sexist, owned by Russia, makes money off bankrupting people, etc. Etc. Those kinds of concerns will result in a drastic defeat.
    Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

    Comment


    • #3
      And like Obama he will find the position is mostly ceremonial.

      Most of the power in this country lies with Congress.

      It's funny Trump seems to think that not only will being President be like being King but that he will be able to dictate to the rest of the world "how shit's going to be from now on"

      When really the rest of the world is more likely to be all "Yeah so you are no longer getting resources from us"

      And our citizens will do to him what we have done to every president since I was a kid.

      "Congress refused a vote on the budget and had to shut down the Government everyone looks to the president in shock 'WHAT DID YOU DO?!!??'"

      Yeah most people who want to be president seem to be much more realistic. Trump seems to buy into the hype of "Most Powerful man in the Free World"

      Which is actually pretty damn far from true. It's less the President is the most powerful and more like he can get into rooms to talk shit over that most people would be barred from. He's got a Fast Pass to Global Diplomacy.

      If he refuses to be diplomatic then he will find himself in the corner pouting like a petulant child while the world moves on without him. Because Baby everyone puts Trump in a corner.
      Last edited by jackfaire; 09-23-2016, 06:21 PM.
      Jack Faire
      Friend
      Father
      Smartass

      Comment


      • #4
        the thing is, people dismissed Obama because they thought the fact that he had only completed 1/2 a term in the Senate before trying for the Presidency meant he was too inexperienced in national-level politics to be President. With Trump, people are concerned that he has the wrong attitude to be president.

        The problem with Trump is personified by The Apprentice- that is, he thinks of the Presidency as him having the ultimate power to make people do what he wants. That is extremely dangerous. Off the top of my head, I don't want the ability to order a Nuclear launch to be in the hands of someone like that ( the Secretary of Defense needs to verify a Nuclear Launch order, but can't actually veto it)

        Comment


        • #5
          You just contradicted yourself. If the SecDec must concur, then yes indeed he is vetoing the launch if he won't go through with it. And don't forget the whole nuke chain-in-command right down to the actual silos/launch places/etc is on the two man rule.

          And yes indeed, the POTUS may indeed be the "leader of the free world" but I wonder if every President repeatedly finds this out the hard way:

          https://youtu.be/TxCqOw5_4oE
          Last edited by Estil; 09-24-2016, 07:44 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jackfaire View Post
            If he refuses to be diplomatic then he will find himself in the corner pouting like a petulant child while the world moves on without him. Because Baby everyone puts Trump in a corner.
            Trump insists one of this greatest strengths is being able to negoiate and make deals and such (I'm guessing you have to do that to get very far in the business world for sure), so him "refusing to be diplomatic" would be throwing that whole thing right out the window.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Estil View Post
              Trump insists one of this greatest strengths is being able to negoiate and make deals and such (I'm guessing you have to do that to get very far in the business world for sure), so him "refusing to be diplomatic" would be throwing that whole thing right out the window.
              Negotiating business deals is a helluvalot different from negotiating in foreign policy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Estil View Post
                Trump insists one of this greatest strengths is being able to negoiate and make deals and such (I'm guessing you have to do that to get very far in the business world for sure), so him "refusing to be diplomatic" would be throwing that whole thing right out the window.
                Actually it wouldn't. See Business Deals aren't diplomacy.

                Diplomacy is trying to make sure both sides walk away satisfied they are both getting a fair shake We get access to resource A and they get access to resource B.

                A Business Deal is trying to make sure you walk away with more than the other guy so that you win.

                In an ideal world business would be about making sure everyone on every side comes out better. In reality it's about fucking the other guy and making him thank you for it.

                Trump has flat out said that we should have taken all of Iraq's oil when we left the country. Not worked out a "deal" to get it or anything even close to that flat out stolen it.

                Trump puts a big focus on winning. That's not a diplomat.

                Winning is something that Business Deals rock. Hey look this guy paid us to save his life by removing organ that was going to kill him. We find out organ contains life saving stuff we can make billions off of. SCORE!

                Business is not and never has been about being fair it's about winning. Diplomacy is about being fair.

                Trump is great at making deals and screwing people out of their money. I agree with you on that. But that doesn't translate to not pissing off other nations whom he has no leverage over.

                Because he will have none. Congress makes most of our Country's decisions and even if the President says "no" they can override him.

                To be a good diplomat he has to be willing to shelve his notion of "winning" and be willing to compromise to get the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. That doesn't seem to be something he is interested in.

                Diplomatic response to wanting all of the oil in Iraq, "I would have invited them to become the 51st State allowing us to permanently shield them, increasing the US resources and instant US Citizenship for every Iraqi citizen helping create a stable government where they currently have none"

                Business deal response to wanting all of the oil in Iraq, "I would have taken all of the oil'
                Jack Faire
                Friend
                Father
                Smartass

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Estil View Post
                  You just contradicted yourself. If the SecDec must concur, then yes indeed he is vetoing the launch if he won't go through with it. And don't forget the whole nuke chain-in-command right down to the actual silos/launch places/etc is on the two man rule.

                  And yes indeed, the POTUS may indeed be the "leader of the free world" but I wonder if every President repeatedly finds this out the hard way:

                  https://youtu.be/TxCqOw5_4oE
                  The Secdef has to verify the order was issued by the President. that is all they can do.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think if you're trying to draw any sort of serious parallel between Obama and Trump you need to do a little more reading. Which is about as polite a response as I can muster to this "argument".

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by s_stabeler View Post
                      The Secdef has to verify the order was issued by the President. that is all they can do.
                      No no no no no, the two man rule means BOTH must consent. If one won't "turn their key" so to speak, it doesn't happen. And in one particular incident during the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was a three-man-rule on a USSR sub which thankfully was not a "best two out of three" but "all three must agree"...or else we would've had "Judgement Day" a quarter century earlier.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
                        I think if you're trying to draw any sort of serious parallel between Obama and Trump you need to do a little more reading. Which is about as polite a response as I can muster to this "argument".
                        I would call it more an observation than an argument. And I'm sure you're great at a lot of things, but "polite responses" to non-liberals on this forum is not one of them. :P

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Estil View Post
                          I would call it more an observation than an argument. And I'm sure you're great at a lot of things, but "polite responses" to non-liberals on this forum is not one of them. :P
                          My problem is with ignorance and partisan shit disturbing, not with "non-liberals". Such as the fact you couldn't even respond without making it about political sports teams.

                          This is a very different election environment from Obama/Mccain. Also, Obama spent 10 years total between the IL and US senate. Not "fractions of terms". Plus that whole you know, constitutional law professor gig prior to that.

                          Trump on the other hand doesn't just have zero experience he is dangerously unqualified. He also doesn't give a rat's asshole about your politics or mine. Left, right, center, doesn't mean anything to him. Trump serves Trump. He has been a democrat and a republican and a democrat and a republican again. All that matters is who will fawn over his dick the most and he's finally found his flock in stupid, hateful white people.

                          His crowds aren't hungry, they're angry. They're also no where near the size of some of the rallies Obama pulled during his campaign.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Trump on the other hand doesn't just have zero experience he is dangerously unqualified.
                            So, from your Canadian (I assume) perspective, what does qualify someone to be President?

                            Here's what I go by:

                            Originally posted by The United States Constitution
                            No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mjr View Post
                              So, from your Canadian (I assume) perspective, what does qualify someone to be President?
                              *sigh*

                              Yes, that's the legal term for qualification (or, as the excerpt you showed, "eligibility"). Gravekeeper is referring to the term "qualification" in the way one would use for any job. I'm eligible to be an auto mechanic. Someone could hire me off the street if they wanted to. I'd still probably destroy the first car I try to repair besides maybe an oil change, and they'd find me to be vastly unqualified. I guess you could say I'm the Donald Trump of car mechanics.

                              Getting so hung up on banal nuances like word choice (such as this and the tired old "He isn't racist because Mexican isn't a race") doesn't really help your case much.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X