Maybe we should just elect Trump president

A conservative group made a pretty funny video mocking Trump and his supporters.
https://youtu.be/rN1HKMyJAro

I saw it at:
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/trump_fans_viciously_lampooned_by_new_video1

When I watched this the first time, I wasn?t aware of the fact that it was actually produced by a group of conservatives, the Public Integrity Alliance of Arizona, a nonprofit largely made up of East Valley Republicans. Frankly one doesn?t expect to see something legitimately amusing coming from Republican quarters?as everyone knows Republicans aren?t funny. But this is excellent, a pitch-perfect country-rock video starring Phoenix-based comedian Brian Nissen?s redneck ?Dwain? character, a mullet-wearing simpleton who wants to ?make America great again? by voting for a blustering, buffoonish billionaire who believes American wages are too high, that we need a border wall to keep out all of the Muslims and Mexicans and all kinds of other silly stuff tailored to the basest of the GOP base? Perhaps you know who he?s talking about?

I'm starting to get a bit anxious about a trump win in the primaries…. he just has this uncanny ability to make great points…notice the attack on Bill and Hillary due to Bill's being a dog…by my count that is his fourth time making a point that really resonates with the American people- rightly or wrongly is not the issue- even though maybe nobody else wants to say it:

1. build a wall/Mexican immigrants rapists/they send their worst
2. Bush did not keep us safe
3. keep muslims out
4. Hillary and Bill last people who should talk about women's rights given his record with women and her role supporting him etc.

compare that to the other Republican candidates… it is interesting to compare a Trump candidacy to that of Andrew Jackson

hutch wrote:making a point that really resonates with the American people- rightly or wrongly is not the issue- even though maybe nobody else wants to say it:

1. build a wall/Mexican immigrants rapists/they send their worst
2. Bush did not keep us safe
3. keep muslims out
4. Hillary and Bill last people who should talk about women's rights given his record with women and her role supporting him etc.

compare that to the other Republican candidates… it is interesting to compare a Trump candidacy to that of Andrew Jackson

How can you say 'rightly or wrongly is not the issue'

I mean In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

Just because ignorance resonates with Americans, should we laud that
I think the GOP is doomed in a national election…primaries really mean nothing
only problem is they hate liberals SOOO much that they would vote for Dezz Nuts before voting for Hillary

Also laughable to see him criticize anyone on women's issues
He is absolutely horrible and to boot he was very pro-liberal on many women's issues in the past

some how he is getting a pass on that though?

hutch wrote:
4. Hillary and Bill last people who should talk about women's rights given his record with women and her role supporting him etc.

This is probably the most fucking stupid thing you've ever said and that's a pretty high bar.

Carlos wrote:

hutch wrote:
4. Hillary and Bill last people who should talk about women's rights given his record with women and her role supporting him etc.

This is probably the most fucking stupid thing you've ever said and that's a pretty high bar.

I don't think it is the most stupid thing I have ever said.. I realize you are a Hillary supporter- as am I- but take your blinders off for a second… what Bill did with Monica was pretty much a crime given she worked for him… Hillary standing by him through multiple bimbo eruptions is a fact…

Trump may have divorced and said horrible things about women but that is different than having a sexual relationship with an intern

hutch wrote:
Hillary standing by him through multiple bimbo eruptions is a fact…

I disagree that standing by him was a mistake, but what do I know
while yes, it was a crime, somewhat minor considering she was a consenting adult
IMO

hutch wrote:

Carlos wrote:

hutch wrote:
4. Hillary and Bill last people who should talk about women's rights given his record with women and her role supporting him etc.

This is probably the most fucking stupid thing you've ever said and that's a pretty high bar.

I don't think it is the most stupid thing I have ever said.. I realize you are a Hillary supporter- as am I- but take your blinders off for a second… what Bill did with Monica was pretty much a crime given she worked for him… Hillary standing by him through multiple bimbo eruptions is a fact…

Trump may have divorced and said horrible things about women but that is different than having a sexual relationship with an intern

It has nothing to do with being a Hillary supporter. The idea that "Hillary [is one of the] last people who should talk about women's rights given [her husbands affair]" is insulting to women everywhere. Should the Jews be the last people to talk about ethnic cleansing? After all, if they really were so anti-ethnic cleansing, they wouldn't have let themselves get all Holocausted.

Carlos wrote:

hutch wrote:

Carlos wrote:

hutch wrote:
4. Hillary and Bill last people who should talk about women's rights given his record with women and her role supporting him etc.

This is probably the most fucking stupid thing you've ever said and that's a pretty high bar.

I don't think it is the most stupid thing I have ever said.. I realize you are a Hillary supporter- as am I- but take your blinders off for a second… what Bill did with Monica was pretty much a crime given she worked for him… Hillary standing by him through multiple bimbo eruptions is a fact…

Trump may have divorced and said horrible things about women but that is different than having a sexual relationship with an intern

It has nothing to do with being a Hillary supporter. The idea that "Hillary [is one of the] last people who should talk about women's rights given [her husbands affair]" is insulting to women everywhere. Should the Jews be the last people to talk about ethnic cleansing? After all, if they really were so anti-ethnic cleansing, they wouldn't have let themselves get all Holocausted.

I agree with you on that point but it is irrelevant.. with a large swathe of the electorate- and particularly the Republican one- what Trump is doing with his Clinton comments is brilliant… I was watching on CNN.. they had a guy who used work for Bill and a guy who supports Trump… the Trump guy ate him for lunch.. all the Bill guy could say is "its so low" and "disgusting"…. he simply looked stunned and depressed…. You think Republican voters care? They are loving it!

And a guy who is able to repeatedly say to people what they want to hear may be a demagogue…but he is dangerous

Since you saw fit to insult me (why the insults man?? ) I urge you to take a reading course.. I said "rightly or wrongly" .. I never said whether I agreed with it or not…  There is almost this reflexive reaction by some of you that anything Trump says must be horrible and we can't even credit him with being politically saavy..come on now.

And just for the record.. I do think Bill Clinton was a total sleaze… I did not vote for him in 1992 and I have never wavered in that belief (although in 1996 I did vote for him… the 1994 Gingrich "revolution" was just too much to take).. history only proved me right.

hutch wrote:
There is almost this reflexive reaction by some of you that anything Trump says must be horrible and we can't even credit him with being politically saavy..come on now.

I consider something politically savvy when it, you know, wins elections. Being ahead in the polls this far out is completely irrelevant. Check out who was leading in past elections at this time. I put Donald Trump's level of political savvy about on par with President Mike Huckabee's, President Rudy Guliani, and President Howard Dean's.

Trump will not get the nomination. And if by some miracle he did, the democrat would win in the biggest landslide election in history. Saying bullshit insanity that renders 75% of America completely unwilling to consider your candidacy is the antithesis of political savvy; its the trademark of someone who is simply interested in publicity for their next venture.

Sidehatch wrote:

hutch wrote:making a point that really resonates with the American people- rightly or wrongly is not the issue- even though maybe nobody else wants to say it:

1. build a wall/Mexican immigrants rapists/they send their worst
2. Bush did not keep us safe
3. keep muslims out
4. Hillary and Bill last people who should talk about women's rights given his record with women and her role supporting him etc.

compare that to the other Republican candidates… it is interesting to compare a Trump candidacy to that of Andrew Jackson

How can you say 'rightly or wrongly is not the issue'

I mean In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

Just because ignorance resonates with Americans, should we laud that
I think the GOP is doomed in a national election…primaries really mean nothing
only problem is they hate liberals SOOO much that they would vote for Dezz Nuts before voting for Hillary

Also laughable to see him criticize anyone on women's issues
He is absolutely horrible and to boot he was very pro-liberal on many women's issues in the past

some how he is getting a pass on that though?

you're so naïve… getting elected is convincing people to vote for you.. not sure why you have difficulty with this concept….

primaries mean nothing? ha hah a…. it means nothing who the nominees are?

the election is almost a year away… a lot can happen in a year…. we could, god forbid, have a massive terrorist attack.. how do you like Hillary's chances then?? the economy could slow down.. a lot of things could happen

and the election will not be decided by head to head matchup polls today- but as usual- by voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia… or do you see the democratic nominee winning the deep south states??? Do you believe Republicans will suddenly win California and New York??? You think democrats will win Texas??

of course not..

Julian please also read what I wrote above even though it was directed at Sidehatch it applies equally to you.

leading in past elections at this time.

Hard to remember that Barry didn't have a strong lead at this point in the game.
This kind off look back does make people catch their breath a liittle and realize there is a lot of time between now and Nov 8th

hutch wrote:I think the GOP is doomed in a national election…primaries really mean nothing

little hyperbole there

primaries mean nothing? ha hah a…. it means nothing who the nominees are?

I should have stated it's really early, he has had a sustained lead, but Bachman, Perry and Cain were all leading the polls too

It is a big feild with a lot of poor choices, so fertile soil for trump.  But I still don't think he'll make it past super tuesday
A lot could happen in 1 month
He has had quite the sustained lead

Monday, February 1                         Iowa caucus
Tuesday, February 9                         New Hampshire
Saturday, February 20-27                Nevada /South Carolina

can anyone tell me why having all the primaries on one day would be a bad thing?

Sidehatch wrote:

hutch wrote:I think the GOP is doomed in a national election…primaries really mean nothing

little hyperbole there

primaries mean nothing? ha hah a…. it means nothing who the nominees are?

I should have stated it's really early, he has had a sustained lead, but Bachman, Perry and Cain were all leading the polls too

It is a big field with a lot of poor choices, so fertile soil for trump.  But I still don't think he'll make it past super tuesday
A lot could happen in 1 month
He has had quite the sustained lead

Monday, February 1                          Iowa caucus
Tuesday, February 9                          New Hampshire
Saturday, February 20-27                Nevada /South Carolina

can anyone tell me why having all the primaries on one day would be a bad thing?

these examples of cain, bachman and Perry are terrible… cain led for like for 2 weeks WAY earlier in the process… bachman led in IOWA like six months before Iowa voted… I think Perry led BEFORE he entered the race or maybe for a week or two right after Bachman.. then he opened his mouth and said "oops".. it is true that Gingrich had a moment in the sun once the primaries started ….a great example of what you are saying is Howard Dean in 2004 who was creaming the field before Iowa, lost iowa to Kerry (horrible candidate), had his SCREAM and was toast….it all happened so quickly…

Trump could implode but he has led since he joined the race like five months ago.. you can't compare that to the other fly by night leaders from recent memory… of course Trump could easily lose Iowa to Cruz and then fall in NH.. of course somebody else can win the Republican nomination..

obviously anything can happen… I think all I was saying was that Trump has an uncanny ability to cut through all the political BS candidates say and say what the people being polled want to hear…that is a huge asset! to be able to read what the people want to hear even when the entire establishment/media/conventional wisdom says its crazy and that if you say it you are done…. FOUR times now he has made rather unconventional statements that have been very effective… we can definitely call him a demagogue but I think he is demonstrating some signs of being a good politician…. its all too easy to say he is a nut and the Republicans are all bonkers but I think that is a little simplistic..(not saying you said that)… I also think that people discounting Trump entirely are missing the point that in a general he would be better positioned to pivot to the center than many other Republicans because he has quite the record of being fairly moderate/liberal on social issues…

big field with a lot of poor choices? I would argue this is the best Republican field ever…. the fact people don't like Jeb Bush or Rick Perry or Walker or any of these people doesn't take away from their experience etc….again, I would not vote for them but a weak field would be the democratic field!!

wholeheartedly agree we should have a national primary.. also, everyone should be automatically registered to vote AND the day of a presidential election should be on a weekend or people should get a day off…

hutch wrote:
and the election will not be decided by head to head matchup polls today- but as usual- by voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia…

FYI…of your states, only VA gets to vote in the primaries on super tuesday
OH and FL….after Puerto Rico (GOP)

jez American Samaoa and the Virgin Islands(?) cast primary votes before NY, MD, PA, NJ and CA!

I really don't understand how order is justified

Sidehatch wrote:

hutch wrote:
and the election will not be decided by head to head matchup polls today- but as usual- by voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia…

FYI…of your states, only VA gets to vote in the primaries on super tuesday
OH and FL….after Puerto Rico (GOP)

jez American Samaoa and the Virgin Islands(?) cast primary votes before NY, MD, PA, NJ and CA!

I really don't understand how order is justified

well I meant the general election..

the idea behind the primary process I think is that Iowa (traditional rural midwest?), New Hampshire (maybe northeast?), South Carolina (southern/black?) and Nevada (west/latino?) together provide a representative microcosm of the US and that we should really only need those states to decide things.. decide things early and move on…obviously those states don't want to lose their early position in the process because of the attention and money the candidates lavish on them….also having a few small states early encourages candidates to talk to and interact with "real people" on the ground whereas if you had a national primary candidates might just focus on running more of a national campaign (more media based.. less small meetings, townhalls, etc).. furthermore, resources to run a national primary campaign would need to be much greater.. some of these things have changed though in the "modern" internet/media age…I am just trying to articulate some of the reasoning behind this moronic system…

I don't think the process makes a whit of sense…members of each party should have a one day primary 2-3 months before the general and be done with it….not this utterly ridiculous neverending marathon slog beatch process with endless debates and candidates appearing on the news programs 873 times….. but of course there are big economic interests at play that fight to keep the system the way it is (think of the money the TV stations in the early states get, the national media which needs something to do, the campaign consultants who benefit from a more drawn out primary process, etc)

just another example of "American exceptionalism"… no other country in the world, of course, has such a system..

it is amazing . . . that when I ask people, if you had to vote today, for either trump or Hillary, the majority answer, is trump.  so many people, do not trust Hillary.