I am not American but a good friend of mine is, and he was comparing Donald Trump to Abe Lincoln. I am not following anything but Trump's the only name that I hear. Is he actually going to be the POTUS? And what about Hillary?

He's another distraction. Like this post.

>>2
^This

No, but it will be fun to watch

No, it'll be either Cruz or Rubio.

Neither Cruz (who isn't even polling at 5%) or Rubio will even get the nomination. It's not going to be a Republican, get that out of your mind. Unless whoever gets the Democratic nomination gets in a HUGE scandal (and I'm not talking emails that were not illegally sent or Benghazi that even Republicans now say was not the fault of either Hillary or Obama) then the Republicans don't stand a chance. Gas prices are super low, the economy has improved enormously, the polls ALL state that all three Democratic contenders are miles ahead of the Republicans, the young, women and minorities are going to show up this time (and they will not vote fore a Republican in mass, even if the Republican were a woman or a minority), the Republicans aren't doing well among independents, it's VERY unlikely a republican will win, and Cruz is one of the least likely to get the nomination, I'd be surprised if he lasts to the South Carolina primary. Rubio will do a bit better.

the polls ALL state that all three Democratic contenders are miles ahead of the Republicans

You're either misinformed or lying. Which is it?

There's this thing called the general election we have in America every four years. The next one will be in November- of NEXT year. All the attention Trump is getting now- because he's leading the polls of voters of one political party- mean jack shit.

Speaking as a Brit, I think he's provided colour (yeah that's how to spell it!) and entertainment to the campaign but he won't be elected. The electorate will see he's clearly too much of a liability and will talk himself into trouble every week. ...Plus, I think that's a syrup on his head.

If the Whig Party were still active perhaps he'd have a chance?

no and he'll be gone in a few months

It would be nice, but probably not gonna happen.

how,in any way would that be nice?

I think he's one of the top 3 or 4 candidates.

So in that way.

He is easily the single worst political candidate I have ever seen run for anything in my lifetime.

he never answers any question.

He never talks about policy.

He has only said one thing he will actually do--build a wall with Mexico and make them pay for it--which the American government cannot do.

He is juvenile and insults people based on looks. I stopped doing that in high school and I assure you I am not the most mature person on earth.

He has bullied the press.

He has said over and over again that he will "be the best" at everything without knowing what he is talking about--which he openly admits.

He is lazy and openly admits he will wait until other people teach him about issues when he becomes president instead of researching.

His claim to fame--that his is a businessman is a laugh because he has put more businesses in bankruptcy than any other billionaire in history.

he inherited the money that started him in the road to become as rich as he was and he would have made more money if he simply invested it in the stock market and did average instead of going into business. An average business person would have made more than him.

That is if he has as much money as he claims. Most in the media doubt it.

He alienates most of the people he does business with--a sure sign of a poor leader.

People outside the country do not take him seriously.

He has said overtly racist things.

I wouldn't vote him for sanitation board--of someone else's city if I was allowed to vote there!

>>14
LOL@ half of that.

if you just laugh and can't refute it with facts you're useless.

This is redpill, not the politics board.

I'm not going to start a fight and have 20 posts go back and forth.

I'll respect that you hate Trump and you should respect that I consider him to be one of the top 3 or 4 candidates.

Trump + Putin = massive thinning of the herd.

I highly doubt it, he's #1 in the GOP polls right now because he's garnered the most media attention, he's sewn up the fringe vote of the conservative party, and because there are entirely too many GOP candidates right now. Rick Perry and Scott Walker have dropped out of the race thus far, but a lot more will follow and the support will not be so spread out. I think Trump will probably stay in the race to the end, but I don't see him gaining much more support than he has now. He's not going to take supporters away from any establishment Republicans or the Christian right republicans, so really he can only takes votes from Ted Cruz's crazy tea-party base, and maybe Rand Paul's libertarian base. One by one as no-chance candidates like Graham, Jindal, Santorrum, Huckabee etc start dropping, and people realize Fiorino and Carson aren't serious candidates, those votes will start going to the Rubio and Bush, but don't count out John Kasich, I wouldn't be surprised if he picks up momentum along the way too.

^^^ Pretty much exactly the way I see it. Bush, Rubio and Kasich are really the only three candidates that haven't gone out of their ways to antagonize or demonize large chunks of the electorate - specifically Hispanics, gays, Muslims and unmarried younger women - that they need to get at least some meaningful percentage of voters from. No, a Republican isn't likely to get 50 or 60% of the Hispanic vote, but Trump and some of the others would be lucky to get 25%, and you can't win an election with those numbers, particularly when it extends to several other demographics as well.

It's amazing to me that after 2008 and 2012, you still have a large percentage of the Republican base, and the candidates, pretending that they can win the presidency without trying to broaden their appeal to anybody outside of older, white male voters. They took a pretty serious diagnostic look at the 2012 results in particular, decided they needed to stop pretending that America still looks like it did in 1952, and then threw all of that away.

The one demographic that pretty much single handedly blocked Romney from White House was the "I'll never vote for a Mormon" group, though they'd never actually put it that way. In the Democratic Party those are identified as "Jimmy Carter Christians" (a bit of an oxymoron, as is Jimmy Carter) but they are not Evangelicals, who did in fact favor Romney over Obama. They would get behind someone like Carson or Huckabee or Jindal if they just voted for who they want, in stead of what the polls suggest. Maybe one day they'll learn that that's the way to get results. That's the day Hillary and other frauds fear.

Obama is actually far more popular than Romney and was then too, nto because Romney was a Mormon and not because of any fracturing of the Republican base. Although Obama may have been hovering at around 40% approval at the time, Romney's approval was LOWER. In fact most political candidates approval ratings were and are STILL much lower. Congress' approval ratings are in the single digit range.

Romney lost because Obama is charismatic and no matter what Fox news said and continues to say, the economy improved and continues to improve with Obama as president. Romney was a poor candidate in a lot of other ways too--he was a flip flopper, he has no charisma, he does not reach either the Republican base or moderate voters with extreme passion. He was the best of a horrible group of candidates in 2012. Most Christian evangelicals were willing to vote for a Mormon to get Obama out of office at the time, but Romney is not someone that ultra conservatives were excited about. If it was simply because of his religion than the statistics would not have shown that such a huge percentage of evangelicals voted for Romney.

Added to all that the demographics of America are changing. Younger people are voting more often in presidential elections and younger people vote democratic more often. Ditto minorities who are becoming a bigger segment of the population. Older white men who make up the majority of Republicans voting block are not as huge part of the electorate in presidential elections in the past. If Republicans are to win a presidential election they need to reach these voters. None of the candidates they have now excite young people anf the minorities they have running--Carson, Cruz and Rubio will not get droves of minorities to vote. It's the POLICIES that get minorities to vote for them. And it's not abotu immigration with Latinos, it's not even close to their number one issue, and that's the only issue Republicans are reaching out to them on.

I don't see Republicans winning in 2016.

Bush, Rubio and Kasich are really the only three candidates that haven't gone out of their ways to antagonize or demonize large chunks of the electorate - specifically Hispanics, gays, Muslims and unmarried younger women

Why does the far Left love Bush so much? Bush loves war, but Trump made a mean comment so I guess we have to go with Bush. I guess we'll have to have more wars, just so long as nobody makes any more mean comments. Really? How is that good for blacks/Hispanics/homosexuals/women? Your view must come from a place of privlidge, to have your priorities so out of whack.

It's not that we on the far left love Bush (Far from it), more that we recognize the American electorate skews to the center during presidential elections and Bush will most likely run closer to center (why we pick him to be the nominee)...Most lefties think they are all idiots, including Trump and Bush...

It's not that we on the far left love Bush (Far from it), more that we recognize the American electorate skews to the center during presidential elections and Bush will most likely run closer to center (why we pick him to be the nominee)...Most lefties think they are all idiots, including Trump and Bush...

You and anon are both complimenting Bush. The way I hear Lefitsts put it most often is that "Bush is the only sane Republican". You say he's closer to the center, closer to you on the Left. All out war on a massive scale!? Bailouts for the worst corporations!? This is what you think is more moderate, less extreme, than a mean comment on some rich woman's looks? You're crazy. There's nothing moderate about any of Bush's positions. He is identical to Hillary in that he could not be more extreme in his support for war. Tell me how Bush could be more pro-war than he already is. Nothing makes him more "centrist" than the others. It's in your head. It's been put in your head by the media. Bush is not conservative. Conservatives hate him. The only people who I've seen give even faint praise are liberals and progressives. I think what's going on is that the establishment wants open borders, and so Donald Trump is castigated as some kind of evil racist on the extreme Right, and Bernie Sanders who also opposes open borders as a corporate giveaway, gets the same treatment, only he's marginalized as extreme Left and as some sort of bumbling fool who doesn't know how to interact with black people. You have been conditioned to accept war on your side, so long as it means Donald Trump won't hurt La Raza's feelings. That's pretty pathetic that you'd align yourself with the trivial over the substantial.

There's also another reason. If you'd put Hillary in a one on one debate against Dr. Carson, a principled, intelligent guy who can do a fluent speech without a teleprompter, he'd make Hillary look like the satanist with the anger issues that she is. Safest choice, Bush, who'll be most easily defeated in the main elections. It's not that Bush will actually help Hillary, it's that nobody will show enthusiasm to vote for him, and that's what every modern campaign needs. People are too afraid to vote for the more controversial candidates to realize that. That's what Hillary is counting for.

Her story should be over. Even the most militant feminists will drag their ass to the polls begrudgingly. Now would be the time for the conservatives to think hard and choose their FAVORITE candidate.

It makes it all the more sad if they choose a compromise (Bush) and lose everything. Compromise in the sense that he is seen as moderate, and only cares about his corporations. You are right about the war mongering, as with Clinton.

Kasich is actually the only sane Republican running. Bush is one of the nuttiest. Next to Trump he is THE nuttiest.

No...Bush or Rubio will get the Republican nod and get trounced by Hillary....Trump will be a footnote

NO. He'd never have a chance in general election. White males no longer dominate the electorate.

Trump is loved by blacks. He will get a quarter of their votes just like Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Interesting! Do you happen to have any hard data on that? Not saying you are wrong, mind you, just curious.

"Tha Donald" knows how to get dat green and smack tha hunnies around kno wut I'm sayin? Seriously, he's like a rapper in a music video. He's aspirational. I read an article a while ago by some rich black real estate mogul who talked about how the black community sees Trump as someone who built an empire, whereas they see other politicians as spineless suits who haven't attained anything greater than what they were given. Blacks as a group like the American dream he said, unlike their white Progressive counterparts in the Democratic Party who frequently are hostile to success stories. Whites want to limit success. Whites want to knock people down. Blacks want to raise themselves up. Trump is cocky and aggressive. Black leaders tend to be very expressive. It's a biological kinship. Why did blacks like Arnold Schwartzengger so much? Isn't it obvious? Just like no woman wants a meek little passive aggressive university feminist for a boyfriend, no black wants a calculating little chicken neck beak-nose to make sure white people say "person of color" instead of "colored person" for them.

Not exactly hard data, but hey, I like the way you think. Tight work.

Brilliant analysis. Keep 'em comin' babe.

Waiting . . .

My favorite study about celebrity "art of the deal" businessman Donald Trump is this: In 2014 Forbes estimated his personal net worth at $4 billion. In 1982 Trump inherited $200 million from his father. Had he passively invested that $200 million in a S&P 500 tracking fund in 1982 it would be worth $8.5 billion today.

Making allowances for 33 years of personal spending which would reduce the passive portfolio total by 2015, he still would be worth 50% more today had he done nothing but gone fishing on the day he inherited.

Art of the deal my ass.

That long-term indexed shit is for chumps and losers . . . I'm a here and now kinda guy, baby.

By 4pm I'm a dinosaur!

It just shows Trump is another stupid rich kid who spent his life pissing away the family fortune.

I had no idea he had inherited that much. Adjusted for inflation, $200m thirty years ago is a lot of money.

The story is all wrong. He inherited $40 million and turned it into $200 on his own by the point in the 80's where a bull market began. You could literally conclude that Trump ought to have infinity dollars.

Proof?

I don't doubt anything you've stated Miss Thrope.

But I'd like to know if all of those assumptions are just growth of the 200 million, w/o spending any of it.

That's my guess, which throws a lot of what you state out the window.

It doesn't take any living expenses into account, nor does it recognize the future value of the Trump brand. It's also selective about taxes and cherrpicks entry and exit into the market. Investing is a skill, and your right, that even while Trump has a lavish lifestyle, modest deductions for living expenses are enough to decimate the value of compound interest.

It's like all those studies out of Harvard to show that red meat is bad for you. If you consider the known lifestyle ills of drinking, smoking, lack of exercise, etc... all less common to vegetarians and any other group actively making dietary choices, then the small difference in outcomes should actually be said to show a protective effect confered by red meat. You'd think top scientists would have these basic control variables but they don't.

Thank you.

I heard a true and somewhat funny line last year.

If you torture statistics enough, you can get them to tell you anything.

My favorite study about celebrity "art of the deal" businessman Donald Trump is this: In 2014 Forbes estimated his personal net worth at $4 billion. In 1982 Trump inherited $200 million from his father. Had he passively invested that $200 million in a S&P 500 tracking fund in 1982 it would be worth $8.5 billion today.

George Will referenced the exact same study in his latest column in The Washington Post which I read yesterday.

Ain't that some shit?

I've mentioned this previously, but in the UK trump means fart. So if he does win he will be President Fart.

No, he won't even be the nominee.

I have faith in America that it would never do something as dumb as vote him in as President. Then again George Dubya was voted in twice, so who knows.

If you're not American, why care?

Because many care about world politics as a leader in a foreign country can effect others as well, in terms of diplomatic relations. Many who are interested in politics like to look at it on a world scale.

I'm not a political activist, so I barely pay attention to foreign politicians. I suppose that's my bad.

No. Trump is the classic type of candidate who garners all the media attention but when it comes time to actually vote, almost nobody supports him. He's having a ball right now but he'll be humiliated in the end.

No.

Not if enough voters watch South Park.

It's odd that so many people don't like illegal aliens that contribute nothing at all to the US taking advantage of every possible handout they can. Why would anyone want to get rid of non tax paying criminals that refuse to enter the country legally like millions before them did?

I think I'll invite a few million pals to go mooch off the largesse of one of those generous European counties and grab up some of them no interest loans too while I'm at it.

1. "Illegal Aliens" contribute taxes. They actually put more in the system in then they take out and actually help the economy more than they hurt it. Penn and Teller, who are hardly Liberals did an episode of their TV show on this, most economists believe this.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/

2. It is almost impossible for an "Illegal Alien" to get on any social program. To do so they would need fake IDs which are usually more expensive than the social programs than they would benefit from. I have friends that are undocumented and they cannot get on food stamps, medical or any other social program. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. You're full of it.

>>55
The cost of public schooling alone is $15,000 per student per year on average, and illegals tend to be in more expensive big cities, and require ESL on top, which is additionally extremely expensive for some reason. Most people simply have no idea how expensive these social services actually are, and understanding this makes any notion of net contributions unfathomable. Think about it this way: America is in serious debt. That means most Americans aren't net contributors! Whatever illegals are costing now, you can't ignore that they will cost even more down the line. They deteriorate the economy in all sorts of other ways such as by sending money out of the country, or by disproportionately shopping at big box stores like Wal-Mart. That may be an aesthetic value, but you can't blame someone for not disregarding economic impact.

A fake ID is fifty bucks and most illegals already have them. It costs more than that to pay the coyotes to get into the country in the first place. Often they get them through networks, like organized crime. You have to have a social security number to work and pay taxes, and according to you they have no trouble doing that. Many welfare benefits are explicitly available to illegals anyway, many are not allowed to ask about citizenship or even legal status, most notably for the super expensive health care services. Not even England with its generous fully universal healthcare system does what we do. Even legal non-citizens have to pay in England, and pay premium, never mind illegals.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Why is Mexico in such bad shape? That's a serious question. Mexico is full of net tax contributors apparently, yet they seem impoverished. Mexico has the highest concentration of billionaires in the world. The last thing America needs is to continue heading in that direction. Mexico produces official documents on how to cross the border, and the Mexican president chastised Arizona for attempting to resist invasion. Why are they so desperate to get rid of their best people? That's not normal. Countries, governments, like to grow. Mexico even deports more Central Americans per year than America. Mexico has very strict immigration laws and the secret reason for that is that they don't want competition into America. America is a pressure relief valve for their corruption.

Consider how much effort the media has put into shaping the debate. The term illegal alien is accurate and descriptive, referring to the condition of being in the country illegally. Undocumented immigrant or worker or whatever, those are the propaganda terms. They introduce an element of blame and seek to shift focus. Being in this country illegally is a crime, a Federal crime, whereas a lack of papers is meaningless. What papers? It's as if it's some sort of bureaucratic oversight. Government couldn't meet the needs of the immigrant/victim. It's now official policy at most media outlets to only use these propaganda terms. Why are they biased? Is it corporate corruption like Bernie Sanders says? Every politician with any traction is pro-open borders even though most Americans are not. Trump was pro-open borders as recently as 2012. The push from the Left goes even beyond open borders. Right now America is paying to import "refugees" and disperse them all over quiet towns in America to create enclaves, complete with full housing and living stipends. These immigrants are not just net parasites; they're pure parasites, large ones. There's nowhere further Left for us to go. America already has the absolute number one most liberal immigration policy in the entire world, the polar opposite of guess who... The Jewish State Of israel.

Okay I'll respond to your nonsense. First point. "Illegal Alien" is a wedge term that isn't accurate because it refers to the PERSON as illegal. People cannot be illegal only actions can be. The noun is referring to a person, not an act. You wouldn't say "Illegal jaywalker". It's GRAMMATICALLY incorrect regardless of whether you think it's appropriate or not. Also the term Alien no longer means immigrant it means visitor from another planet. It's like referring to someone who is happy as gay.

$50 fake IDs may fake out a person working as a doorman at a bar, but it's not going to fake out a worker for the government who is TRAINED to recognize those documents. Plus most undocumented immigrant would be terrified to use one. Like I said I actually know undocumented immigrants and they risk being deported every time they break the law. If you'd do research instead of just blindly trusting what the media tells you, you'd know that undocumented immigrants once they are across the borders break the law far less often than natural born American citizens

Your conspiracy theory about Mexico trying to get rid of it's best citizens is such a fringe theory that google has no pages that mention it. NONE.

And I have not heard anyone that is completely for open borders. I listen to every Bernie Sanders speech and every Obama speech that the internet has. All the democratic candidate want to protect the borders from terrorists and none want to let all immigrants in discriminatory. Keep grasping at Strawmen. Oh and by the way, as of 2008 thee are more immigrants leaving the U.S than coming in.

And I notice no candidate (either Republican or Democrat) mentions anything about people that are kidnapped into this country as sex slaves or other types of illegal slaves and continue to live here because they have no choice. Or the good number that are dragged here as children by family members and again have no choice but to live here.

Also Trumps wall? Will do no good. Thje vast majority of immigrants come here legally and stay after their visas expire. Also a good portion of them come from the *CANADIAN* border. In fact every single terrorist that has ever entered the U.S. from the Middle East entered here from Canada, a MUCH less secure border than Mexico.

Of course these are all facts, something you're allergic too.

You'll just accuse me of being a Hillary Clinton Supporter even though I won't vote for her or a commie even though I prefer Eisenhower to JFK though.

I thought it was going to be between Scott Walker or Jeb Bush. Now I'm pretty convinced it will be Jeb Bush as the GOP nominee.

Trump is a joke. I don't take him seriously as a candidate.

no

Nope. If anything, the republicans won't let him win.

Doubtful. He's made far too many enemies, and lacks diplomatic skills that will be necessary for the office. Liberals seem to think he's a misogynistic, racist blowhard, and most conservatives seem to think he's a complete fraud who's full of himself.

I don't know who shall become president. But for sure it will not
be Trump nor Hillary.

Trump is just a rich guy having fun for now and for how long it may
last.

Hillary is just warm over baloney. And I believe the public is weary
of the Clintons and want to move on.

Lincoln? That's like comparing the taste of Ice Cream to the taste of Horse Manure. And Trump ain't the ice cream.

>>63
Lincoln was a railroad lobbyist, tyrannical rent seeking scum like all the others, an ugly man, the first president to have his likeness photoshopped. It's time to stop worshiping authority.

No. People will get bored of him.

Trump was exposed as a phony when he beat his chest in macho terms against "El Chapo", the Mexican drug lord. But after El Chapo escaped from prison and threatened Trump on Twitter, not only did Trump go crying for help to the FBI but he clammed up and never said a word about El Chapo again in his campaign. Underneath his cocky façade, Donald Trump is a wussy rich boy who avoided the draft and has spent his whole life sheltered from hardship.