Could we be looking at the next President of the United States?

Lawd what a scary thought...

What do you think of his chances? And what would that look like if it happens?

50/50

55 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

50/50

 

I predict this thread will be very argumentative. 

hilary wins regardless. Unless she's in jail. 

I honestly dont think the drumpf will be as bad as he portrays atm. No way most the **** he says will actually happen, hes just being outlandish for the publicity, banking that any publicity is good publicity. Seems his campaign over shadows everyone else on both sides and it might actually end up helping him with the voters who "gotta vote for someone". Not the greatest tactic, but who knows, it has yet to obliterate him at the polls

I don't think Trump has the support of Blacks, Muslims, Latinos & Women  to win the Presidential election after what he says & the way he acts. Every moderate Republican either won't vote for him or vote Democratic (Clinton). As far as rioting if he doesn't win the GOP nomination that's not his voter base. They won't riot. More likely they'll just stay home & not vote. I do think he does incite hatred among other things so the riot comments were done to put fear in the Republican Party to make it a brokered convention if he doesn't have the 1,237(?)  delegates to win. Lord help us if he does.

Edited March 20, 20169 yr by iso_55

Scott Baio is now endorsing Trump.  this contest is over

The checks and balances in place should prevent him from being too dangerous. He'd be fought at every turn. If anything Trump as president would risk impeachment eventually.  Maybe even coup. 

On the other hand he could bring out to vote many people who otherwise wouldn't vote. Is that enough to counter the moderates who will flock to Hilary to block him? 

4 hours ago, iso_55 said:

I don't think Trump has the support of Blacks, Muslims, Latinos & Women  to win the Presidential election after what he says & the way he acts. Every moderate Republican either won't vote for him or vote Democratic (Clinton). As far as rioting if he doesn't win the GOP nomination that's not his voter base. They won't riot. More likely they'll just stay home & not vote. I do think he does incite hatred among other things so the riot comments were done to put fear in the Republican Party to makesure  it isn't a brokered convention if he doesn't have the 1,237(?)  delegates to win. Lord help us if he does.

 

I think a lot of the protests were hired guns. I certainly don't love trump but it's always nice when liberals take pride in denying someone else their free speech rights.  It's embarrassing. And it would be on either side. 

The sad part will be if Trump wins his nomination, this will guarantee a win for Hillary and she will be a terrible President. Worse than Obama.

Just not sure Cruz would be any better.

The US has it worse right now then we did choosing between the tyrant and the man-child.

Anyone actually read his book? He's running his campaign the exact same way he's run his businesses. He says the worst things to put people off their guard and then when he backs down somewhat from them, then people don't think it's as bad (meeting in the middle thing). There's no way he would be able to accomplish 90 percent of what he says but there still is a reasonable chance he ends up winning the Presidency. 

Edited March 21, 20169 yr by IC Khari

People forget some of the terrible things great presidents or teams have said during campaigns. Politics is a dirty game .

#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain 

His building a wall statement made me question his credibility...scary thought is that he even came this far

Not that I agree with a wall per se, but it's been obvious that illegal immigration from Mexico into the US has been rampant for years. If it's a way to deter that from happening and more regulated immigration done properly then it's not as ridiculous as it sounds.  

When I hear we're building a wall, I immediately think it's too keep people out entirely, but I dont think it's that extreme, just an extreme measure to reduce an on-going problem they have. 

http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engineer-explains-why-trumps-wall-is-so-implausible/

An engineer breaks down what it would cost to build a wall.  He comes to the conclusion it would have to concrete (chain link fencing would not accomplish its purpose).  Here are some interesting assumptions he makes:

Quote

If we assume a border wall length of 1,954 miles (there are 600 or so miles of existing border barrier, but much of this would not qualify for Trump’s wall), then we can make some estimates as to the volume of concrete needed for the project:

• Foundation: 6 feet deep, 18 inch radius = 42.4 cubic feet
• Column: 4 square feet area by 30 feet tall = 120 cubic feet
• Wall panels: 25 feet tall by 10 feet long by 8 inches thick = 166.7 cubic feet
• Total concrete per 10-foot segment = 329.1 cubic feet
• 1,954 miles = 10,300,00 feet = 1,030,000 segments (10-feet long each)
• 1,030,000 segments * 329.1 cubic feet per segment = 339,000,000 cubic feet = 12,555,000 cubic yards. (The cubic yard is the standard unit of measure of concrete volume in the United States.)

Twelve million, six hundred thousand cubic yards. In other words, this wall would contain over three times the amount of concrete used to build the Hoover Dam — a project that, unlike Trump’s wall, has qualitative, verifiable economic benefits.

Such a wall would be greater in volume than all six pyramids of the Giza Necropolis — and it is unlikely that a concrete slab in the town of Dead Dog Valley, Texas would inspire the same timeless sense of wonder.

That quantity of concrete could pave a one-lane road from New York to Los Angeles, going the long way around the Earth, which would probably be just as useful.

Concrete, of course, requires reinforcing steel (or rebar). A reasonable estimate for the amount of rebar would be about 3 percent of the total wall size, resulting in a steel volume of 10,190,000 cubic feet, or about 5 billion pounds. We could melt down 4 of our Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and would probably be a few cruisers short of having enough steel.

But the challenge is far greater than simply collecting the necessary raw materials. All of these hundreds of miles of wall would need to be cast in concrete facilities, probably project-specific ones that have been custom built near the border. Then, the pre-cast wall pieces would need to be shipped by truck through the inhospitable, often roadless desert.

The men and women doing the work of actually installing the wall would have to be provided with food, water, shelter, lavatory facilities, safety equipment, transportation, and medical care, and would sometimes be miles away from a population center of any size. Sure, some people would be willing to to do the work, but at what price? Would Trump hire Mexicans?

This analysis also ignores the less sexy aspects of large-scale engineering projects: surveying, land acquisition, environmental review, geological studies, maintenance, excavating for foundations, and so on. Theoretical President Trump may be able to executive-order his way through the laser grid of lawsuits that normally impede this kind of work, but he can’t ignore the physical realities of construction.

 

I wish he would cost this out, but it sounds damn expensive.  What would the cost benefit analysis look like?

Im sure he could swing a few votes of approval just on the promise it would create a huge # of jobs.

the interesting thing about a project like this, is it would be touted as an economic win for jobs, and a win for national security.  Yet other projects like The great wall of china, the pyramids, and the Pacific Railway were all built on slave labour,  yet today are looked at as wonders of the world - well not so much the railway but it proved to be a very lucrative endeavor despite the way it was built

Trump hiring Mexicans to build it...oh the irony.

When he says Mexico will pay for the wall he does not mean that Mexico will build it. He is paying for the wall by taking out what the US pays to Mexico in foreign aid. So if they are getting one billion dollars a year in aid and the wall cost 500 mil then they will only get 500 mil in aid.

The possibilty it even exists is dumb founding in itself

Hey, what the hell is NATO?? Get it out of here.

His Wall idea offends a lot of people because the idea of building walls in a post Berlin-wall world sounds awful.  But the idea of doing something about illegal immigration is too often met with accusations of racism.  It's hard to have that conversation in a civilized way with people who dont want to have it.  I certainly havent studied the issues.  But I listened to an interview with some guy who's name and credentials escape me - he was actually on CJOB.  He was rattling off numbers that would see illegal immigration truly hinder the US in a matter of years if it continues unchecked.

*Illegal* Immigration should not be allowed.  How much drugs stream over that border?  The idea of a wall was Trump's big trial balloon in seeing if his "unpopular" rhetoric would resonate with the average American.  And it did.  Big time.  He says populist things.  When his enemies attack him as racist and misogynistic and he continues to poll so strongly, they are attacking a large number of Americans. 

His idea of banning Muslims is ridiculous.  But it speaks to a lot of American's who feel unsafe and feel Obama has not done enough to battle Islamic Extremists and to assure American safety.  Trump's voice is the loudest and most common in a void.  He's speaking to people's emotions.  He doesnt sound like a politician.  That appeals to many people.

When Obama first ran for the Presidency, he did so in a similar but different way.  He said "change" and nothing of substance.  It spoke to people's innate desire for betterment.  He made sure not to say anything substantial because he knew he was tapping into emotion which didnt require sense.  Trump is doing the same.

10 hours ago, Jpan85 said:

When he says Mexico will pay for the wall he does not mean that Mexico will build it. He is paying for the wall by taking out what the US pays to Mexico in foreign aid. So if they are getting one billion dollars a year in aid and the wall cost 500 mil then they will only get 500 mil in aid.

I saw a John Oliver bit where they had engineers cost out the wall based the length, height, materials, etc. that Trump noted, as well as other required infrastructure, and the cost would come in around $25 billion.

23 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

When Obama first ran for the Presidency, he did so in a similar but different way.  He said "change" and nothing of substance.  It spoke to people's innate desire for betterment.  He made sure not to say anything substantial because he knew he was tapping into emotion which didnt require sense.  Trump is doing the same.

So, people on both sides of the electorate are idiots for listening to these dumbasses. I can get behind that. The odd thing Obama did promise his first time through he didn't follow through on (Gitmo is still open).

But we have the same to look forward to up here. We voted in the man-child and now get to see how many of the promises we think he made he will actually keep.

3 minutes ago, tacklewasher said:

So, people on both sides of the electorate are idiots for listening to these dumbasses. I can get behind that. The odd thing Obama did promise his first time through he didn't follow through on (Gitmo is still open).

But we have the same to look forward to up here. We voted in the man-child and now get to see how many of the promises we think he made he will actually keep.

Well that's sort of the problem of politics, especially in the US right now.  Is that the game is to win, not to campaign on your ideals.  Trump's strategy is effective.  If he did win the general election, I think you'd see a pretty stark change in how he acted.  He's even said as much.  I dont think he'd be a very effective President because I think he'd be battled at every turn by Congress and the media.  But I dont think he'd do anything overly "crazy". 

Its such a contrast between Trump and Hilary that it would make for an entertaining campaign if nothing else.  I assume Trump would choose a more moderate and experienced running mate to try and blunt some of the criticism.  People might have sober second thoughts when it comes down to actually voting for him.  Clinton needs a good running mate too...she's getting up there in age.  If it's Trump/Palin though...ugh

Im surprised to see JT label the bombings today as terrorism.  Baby steps I guess.