Friday, September 23, 2016

Trump Predicted to Win

On the lighter side.  Here is an interesting story.

55 comments:

Laurie said...

to me that seems a very dark and scary possibility.

John said...

As I Posted as a Comment.

"Rosalie,
Obama said something to the effect of "he had to undergo a huge change and learn a lot of things when he moved from being Candidate Obama to sitting behind the big desk as President Obama".

So though I have very real concerns about Trump's past, I have great faith that he is highly motivated to carve out a glowing place for himself in history. And he is happy to change his beliefs based on the will of the majority.

That said he may not be as bad of a President as many here believe."

"My elderly parents are big fans of Trump, so it frustrated them greatly when I reminded them that both Trump and Clinton have a lot of skeletons in their closet. I mean they are both financial and power climbers...

Of course, like many on the far Left and Right, they opted to deny Trump's flaws and exaggerate Clinton's. Hopefully someday people on both sides will accept that both candidates are rather self centered people with human flaws.

The question is which do we think will do better for the USA in the future?"

"It seems the people a ways Left and Right of Center insist on seeing Heroes and Villains... When in reality these politicians are just flawed humans just like us.

Trump and Clinton are both self centered people who have willingly chosen to live in the public eye and be "successful". Both have made questionable choices and made mistakes.

How does that go... Let the perfect throw the first stone...

I wish our culture would start focusing on why the candidates would be good for the position, instead trying to scare everyone against the opponent by turning them into the "villain"..."

John said...

My point is that both sides are doing their absolute best to make the opponent look like a monster to get people out to vote. Don't let all the horror stories cause you any sleepless nights.

Our country has survived world wars, great depressions and many other challenges bigger than having Clinton or Trump in the White House. Maybe in the next 4 years you will be the one thankful for gridlock and our 3 obstinate branches of government.

By the way, I found the road signs out West amusing !!!

They read "Clinton for Prison"

Anonymous said...

Our country has survived world wars, great depressions and many other challenges bigger than having Clinton or Trump in the White House

I am sure that's what they said in Rome too. That Donald Trump is taken seriously is evidence of our national decline and a powerful suggestion that our country may not survive.

--Hiram

John said...

I answered Hiram over here.

Laurie said...

I agree with Hiram..

With Hillary we get gridlock and we continue on the same course, for better or worse. With Trump we get republican policies passed into law, which for one thing will totally blow up the deficit and we get an extremely dangerous commander in chief. I am not going to takes the time to list the dozens of other reasons Trum is a dangerous choice, as either people do not need to be convinced or cannot be persuaded.

John said...

Laurie,
Your belief is pretty defeatist, the Democrats can easily take back the Senate and then we will have gridlock either way.

The big question is if the Republicans cut taxes... Will they actually cut spending? Historically they have been irresponsible and not done so.

We know what will happen if the Democrats gain total control. Taxes, spending and government control of our society will increase even further. Not a pretty thought for a personal freedom advocate like myself.

Personally I hope gridlock persists no matter who wins.

Anonymous said...

Until recently, Donald Trump believed that President Obama was born outside the United States, something no intelligent person could believe. That alone renders the notion of his election to the president as completely absurd. He just isn't smart enough for the job.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

John, for someone who follows and blogs about politics sometimes your views are surprisingly ignorant. There is in reality zero chance of the dems retaking the house, thus gridlock is enssured under a Clinton presidency.

I think if Trump wins it is highly likely he will have a republican senate which will be able to pass his large tax cut in a way dems won't be able to block by filibustering. As to whether the repubs will cult spending significantly, I don't think so. If they can repubs will cut spending that helps poor people but that is not that much money. I believe Trump has been against cutting SS, but maybe he could be talked into going along with this. If the Trump deficits were to increase as much as projected future cuts to SS seem much more likely.

Anyway, if you care about the deficit you should vote for Hillary.

John said...

Hiram,
What Trump says and what he believes are not always aligned... He may be smarter than you think.

Laurie,
Please remember that it does not matter which way I vote. I live in MN...

"Minnesota, cobbled together from land that was part of the original United States, land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase and land acquired from Great Britain in 1818, joined the Union in May 1858. Minnesota voted exclusively Republican from 1860 through the onset of the Great Depression, except for 1912 when it sided with Progressive candidate (and former Republican) Theodore Roosevelt. From 1932 onward, the state has primarily voted Democratic, last voting Republican during Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972. Only Washington DC has a longer Democratic winning streak. In 1984, Minnesotans gave homegrown Senator Mondale his only state in the lopsided loss to Ronald Reagan. In 2012, Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 7.7%."

John said...

More fuel for the fire.

MP Trump May Win

Laurie said...

I am fully aware that your Mn vote will not tip the Election to Trump. I just find any Trump votes aggravating , unbelievable, offensive etc. as I view Trump as 10 times worse than any GOP president or candidate in my memory. I think he is way worse than even Nixon, though I don't know that much about Nixon as I was just a kid and we have not yet lived through all the damage Trump would do to the country.

I am really hoping Monday's debate will show millions of viewers how completely unprepared and at times idiotic Trump is.

Laurie said...

this newspaper has endorsed all republican presidential candidates for 100 years and this year endorsed Hillary Clinton:

Enquirer: It has to be Hillary Clinton

Anonymous said...

What Trump says and what he believes are not always aligned...

Are you claiming that he was lying about President Obama's birthplace?

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie,
You can fixate on Trump's personal flaws, but the reality is that he is the lower taxes / less government candidate. A vote for anyone else is a vote for a furthering and/or acceleration of the Obama years. That is very unacceptable to many Americans who are tired of paying more for their healthcare and that of others, ISIS, failing public schools, failed border security, people blaming police, etc.

Hiram,
You are correct. Trump likes to bait and entice conversations by saying things that he may or may not believe. He is a negotiator / salesman for better or worse.

Laurie said...

Trump is a liar and a con man and his policies will do nothing to make America great again. They (his policies) will have the opposite effect of destroying the country in a very big way. I hope we don't have the chance to see that all the people warning about Trump, especially when it comes to commander and chief and foreign policy, were right. I am not going to bother finding examples of hundreds of high level officials of different types warning about Trump.

Anonymous said...

Trump likes to bait and entice conversations by saying things that he may or may not believe.

Trump, it seems, lies as a political tactic. Is this the Big Lie technique so popular with the Nazis?

--Hiram

Laurie said...

aaaaaaagh! I just spent 10 minutes typing and retyping hyper links to recent articles in the wapo, NYT and La times that all agree the Donald Trump is a pathological liar, the most lying presidential candidate ever and none of my links will work. Maybe I will try again later. To find these links head over to Kevin Drum's blog as he has a post with them in it. (my Kevin Drum link wouldn't work either) Can't figure it out but am very aggravated at the moment as I can type the brief code without thinking.

I just noticed my mistake so here is Kevin Drum
Everyone Has Suddenly Discovered That Donald Trump Tells the Occasional Lie

John said...

Laurie,
I truly wish a smart capable honest fiscal conservative libertarian type candidate was running and had a chance of winning.

Unfortunately we have a choice between 2 self serving people who tend to lie.

One is for cutting taxes and shaking things up. (ie school vouchers, etc)

One is for doubling down on higher taxes, bigger government, more "freebies", etc.

What is a voter to do???

Hiram,
Are you now proposing that Trump wants to executing millions of undesirables?

I understand the game is to make the opponent look like a monster, but I think that may be a bit extreme.

John said...

In pursuing the Bernie voters, it looks like Hillary has gone far Left.

Pro-Unions
Free / Debt Free College
Universal Healthcare
Paid Family and Medical Leave
Leaving the Teacher's Union in Charge of Education
Protection and help for everyone

I don't think she will get my vote. I think turning our country into a Social Democracy carries more long term risk than the alternative.

Laurie Wagner said...

wikipedia has a page explaining the concept of Big Lie.

I think the big lie of this election is that Hillary is crooked and dishonest and cannot be trusted. This lie has been created over the course of 25 years with endless accusations and investigations. The lie has been primarily created by the republicans but the media has played a part with their endless investigations and misleading headlines.

To me all the investigations have demonstrated that she actually has a high level of honesty as there is never / rarely anything to the accusations. I am thinking mainly of the past couple of years, but I think this is true going back to the 90's. I also think Hillary is incredibly tough to have put up with this (non stop accusations/investigations and lies about her) with so much steadiness and composure for 25 years.

I will say that she sometimes errors on the side of being overly private for a public figure and also sometimes the way she responds to accusations/ investigations is overly lawyerly. Both of these tendencies cannot sometimes make her appear guilty of something or that she is hiding something. Some of her connections don't help her either, as with Goldman Sachs, but there is no record of her doing favors for them and she supported greater regulation of wall street. Bottom line for me is the extreme level of scrutiny she has received has demonstrated that she is basically quite honest.

Laurie Wagner said...

As usual Kevin Drum has influenced my thinking on Hillary's honesty. Here is his post form last spring that clearly stuck in my mind.

Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest and Trustworthy

John said...

Laurie,
Let's assume Trump was an honest and capable GOP candidate...

Would you vote for him?

Why do you think GOP folks would support Clinton?

Laurie said...

A former GOP president is voting for Clinton. If the dem candidate was as unqualified and scary as Trump I think I would vote republican. I call it being patriotic. This would be easy for me if it would just lead to continued gridlock.

Do you ever read Soucheray in the pioneer press? He is planning to write in a vote rather than vote for Trump.

John said...

Laurie,
I think it would kill you off to vote for a Fiscal Conservative, and you would rationalize that the Democrat wasn't really that bad after all. (ie just partisan mudslinging) Just like most Republicans are with regard to Trump.

Relying on gridlock to prevent Social Democracy from destroying the USA is probably a stretch for most of us.

Laurie said...

it seems to me that gridlock has prevented dems from implementing their socialistic agenda for last 6 years (since 2010 election.) The country has done pretty well with a dem president and gop congress (yet not as well as it would have done under total dem control :) Why wouldn't we want to continue this rather than take a chance on dangerous Trump presidency? (It is hard for me to find the right adjectives to describe what makes Trump so dangerous. it really takes more than a word or 2.)

John said...

Maybe "Lying Narcissistic Megalomaniac"

Oh Oh... That is 3 words... :-)

I am kind of thinking he will be impeached, shot or poisoned if he ever gets into the White House. Maybe they will need to institute food taste testers like in the days of old. And just think of the temper tantrums he will throw when Congress says NO...

What do you think of Mike Pence as President? He seems pretty solid.

Laurie said...

I think your description of Trump is fitting and your comment funny. I cannot tell if you are starting to have bigger doubts about Trump. And what is it that congress would say no to with President Trump/ I think there would be quite a lot of agreement.

John said...

Laurie,
I have always had doubts about Trump and Hillary, unfortunately we the voters in reality only have these 2 choices.

People from neither side seem to want to rally around Johnson / Weld...

Now we have to decide which is the lesser of the 2 "Lying Narcissistic Megalomaniacs"... The loud obnoxious one or the quiet conniving one... It is a sad state of affairs that the parties came up with these 2 as "the best they had to offer".

Anonymous said...


Are you now proposing that Trump wants to executing millions of undesirables?

I am exploring ideas. Trump says remarkably stupid things, evidence of a damaged thought process. Anyone taking him literally would have to conclude he is a fool. But I do understand that there is an alternative view, one that holds that Trump is a sophisticated propagandist who uses lies to manipulate the population. It's an interesting idea and one that's hard to rule out. But that view raises a great many questions. The most basic one is, if there is no relation between what Trump says and what he thinks, how can we know what he thinks? How do we know for example that he isn't in favor of murdering millions, which incidentally would be the natural consequence of policies he has advocated for the middle east? Another question would be, what would the effect be on domestic and international politics of electing a president who doesn't just lack credibility, but who has also intentionally abandoned the concept of credibility altogether? How can we adapt to a president who lies as a matter of policy and tactics?

--Hiram

Sean said...

" but the reality is that he is the lower taxes / less government candidate. "

I haven't really seen any concrete proposals from Trump that reduce the size of government. (Many of his proposals in fact *increase* the size of government.) He's just proposing to cut taxes and blow a huge hole in the deficit.

Sean said...

"People from neither side seem to want to rally around Johnson / Weld..."

What, exactly, do Johnson/Weld offer me as a left-leaning guy? Because looking at their platform, I don't see a whole lot there for me. Why should I be attracted to two former Republican governors who essentially offer GOP policies with a thin libertarian sheen?

Anonymous said...

If there is no relationship between what Trump says and what he thinks, as advocates of smart Trump doctrine seem to claim, how would one really know whether Trump really favors a reduction in the size of government? Certainly his career in business lends no support to the idea that he favors a smaller government.

==Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Trump seems gifted at accomplishing goals and swaying public opinion. And he seems interested in being deemed successful. I don't think genocide, WW III or a massive debt increase are things he wants tied to his legacy. But you could be correct, he may be truly evil however I doubt it.

Sean,
My point exactly... Neither side is willing to compromise, therefore we get what we deserve.

Clinton offers Conservatives nothing but more government control/oversight, social democracy and ever increasing taxes, therefore Trump becomes the better choice. Even with all of his flaws... I mean even Cruz fell in line.

Sean said...

How can you support Trump's deficit-busting proposals? Say what you will about Clinton, but she pays for her new spending (of which she's actually proposing very little, by the way...)

Anonymous said...

Trump seems gifted at accomplishing goals and swaying public opinion.

One problem with that is that we can't know what his goals are, because he is not a truthful person. In his business career, when the goal was bullying widows and orphans, he was often although not always successful. How will he do when matched against others who also have a track record of accomplishing their goals?

--Hiram

Sean said...

"One problem with that is that we can't know what his goals are, because he is not a truthful person."

The reality is that most people elected to office try to do what they say they're going there to do. They may not succeed at all of it, but for the most part, they don't just throw stuff out the window once they get there. What Barack Obama said he was going to do, he at least tried to do it. Same with George W. Bush.

So I fully expect that if there's a President Trump that he's going to try to build a border wall, try to institute some sort of Muslim immigration ban, try to pass a tax cut that dramatically favors the wealthy with no corresponding spending cuts. Why would we think he won't? If he were to totally abandon one of his major planks, it would go against the way things usually work. (And, besides, if he got elected saying these things, why would he not follow-through?)

John said...

Sean,
I just don't see how she plans to accomplish all this without big time costs increases.

Just to name a few:
- Free college
- Universal healthcare
- Strengthening Social Security and Medicare

John said...

Sean,
Now I understand your disagreement with making the federal tax code less progressive.

But your concern about not letting people in who can not pass extreme vetting. Really.

And given the issues that the USA has with illegal drugs, low wages for the low skilled / low academics, etc how can anyone be against having a more secure Southern border? (ie steel or electric wall) I am always fascinated that everyone is not appalled that ~400,000 people walk across the border each year without any background checks...

A friend of mine recommended robot controlled gun turrets. I am assuming that would cut down on illegal border crossings in remote areas.

Please remember the goal is to stop desperate people from risking their families in a desperate flight across Mexico.

John said...

A story from Heritage.

A Frontline Story.

Sean said...

Her free college plan is paid for. Her "universal" health care plan is just some incremental changes on top of the ACA. Her Social Security changes are paid for. And her Medicare plan actually *reduces* spending.

Sean said...

"But your concern about not letting people in who can not pass extreme vetting."

Please detail how you think the current vetting process -- which takes about two years -- is substandard. Why is ISIS going to spend two years trying to sneak a terrorist through that process?

"And given the issues that the USA has with illegal drugs, low wages for the low skilled / low academics, etc how can anyone be against having a more secure Southern border?"

I'm not opposed to a more secure border. I don't think, however, that constructing a 1,000 mile wall makes a lot of sense to solve the problem.

Sean said...

I'd also point out that Trump is not merely saying that he would do "extreme vetting", but that there would be blanket bans on immigration from certain countries.

John said...

I think the "wall" may be a combination of physical, electronic, etc.

Here is an interesting article. As you often ask, what is your better idea for stopping people, drugs, etc for crossing into the USA?

As for "blanket bans", I thought that went by the wayside in his kinder and gentler proposal.

John said...

If I remember... Clinton's idea for covering the costs was to make the Fed taxes even more progressive... Or did I miss something?

Sean said...

The best thing we could do would be to pass comprehensive immigration reform and develop a guest worker program. Then, we can aggressively enforce the law against employers who hire illegal immigrants. Yes, we need some additional border security agents, and we need to give more resources to our immigration courts and there may be some areas that need some additional hardening. But spending untold billions to build a wall through the desert isn't really getting to the core of the problem.

John said...

To me the core problem is that almost anyone can currently get across the border with anything. (ie slaves, drugs, pregnant moms, other) Giving pardons to previous law breakers, punishing legal businesses, etc does nothing to curb this.

Please explain to me what you see as the "core problem"?

Sean said...

The core problem is that you have businesses willing to break the law to hire people who are not authorized to work here in order to achieve lower wages. If you reduce the demand for those workers, the supply will dwindle as well. I would argue it makes more sense to do that than to try and make a 2,000 mile border impregnable.

John said...

Do you really think that law breaking companies who truly use and abuse their employees / slaves are going to register their employees?

And many of the workers work for cash doing field work, yard work, house cleaning, construction, etc. They are contractors, not employees. I am not sure how registration even applies in these cases?

You may stop illegals from working for Chipotle and the Turkey Processors, but it won't stop the illegals from making money.

John said...

"you have businesses willing to break the law to hire people who are not authorized to work here in order to achieve lower wages"

Now I agree that this is a problem and I am happy to keep tightening the screws, but no one dies...

An insecure border has many worse consequences that I am more concerned about.

As mentioned above: Sex trafficking, Forced Labor, Drug smuggling, Weapons smuggling, terrorist smuggling, etc.

Sean said...

"Do you really think that law breaking companies who truly use and abuse their employees / slaves are going to register their employees?"

They will if you make it painful for them to be caught hiring illegals. Shouldn't they be held accountable for breaking the law?

"I am not sure how registration even applies in these cases?"

Good Lord, don't tell me I'm going to have to educate you on this issue, too?

John said...

To repeat: "I am happy to keep tightening the screws,"

Yes: Is the Homeowner responsible to ensure their lawn service I staffed with legals?

And yet we won't allow police officers to ask for proof of citizenship. Really?

Sean said...

"Is the Homeowner responsible to ensure their lawn service I staffed with legals?"

The owner of the lawn service is. If the homeowner is just hiring an individual, then, yes they are taking that risk. Just like the people who hire illegals as nannies do.

John said...

So help me understand...

Police see someone that they are pretty certain is an illegal, and they are not allowed to ask for documentation and arrest/deport them.

Yet you want Mom to demand proof of legal citizenship for the guy mowing the lawn for $20 cash.

Please help me understand this logic?


By the way, while we are locking up Mom... The following are still occurring undeterred. Sex trafficking, Forced Labor, Drug smuggling, Weapons smuggling, terrorist smuggling, etc

Sean said...

"Police see someone that they are pretty certain is an illegal, and they are not allowed to ask for documentation and arrest/deport them."

Police need some sort of probable cause to demand identification from a person. They just can't make a guess. If "sanctuary city" laws are what you are referring to with this comment, that's an issue that local law enforcement needs to decide for itself. Without such provisions, illegal immigrants are often unwilling to come forward to report crimes or act as witnesses. This leaves those communities especially vulnerable to victimization and it leaves the rest of us at risk as criminals stay on the street. Ultimately, that has to weighed against the concerns about having illegal immigrants in your community in the first place, and that's a decision best made at the local level. (And, frankly, if federal immigration policies were more coherent, this would be much less of a problem for local authorities who often end up footing the bill for the federal failures.)