Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

[bigred]

There is some chance but it is very small. He is disliked by a huge majority of the country (he will be the most disliked candidate probably ever). People will be motivated to vote just to make sure he doesn't become President.

Maybe he thinks he can pivot away from all the crap he's said during primary season but no way. It has all been recorded and will be used against him mercilessly. And it might backfire by angering his supporters if he tried anyway.

Hillary will also have two people that have won two Presidential elections each doing everything they can to make sure she wins. Bernie Sanders too, probably. Who has Trump got?

Trump is very likely going to lose. Probably badly.

Tragically, this is all true. Not tragic because Trump won't be president, but tragic because Hillary will be. I doubt we've had 2 worse choices for president ever.

 

[Joey McGee]

Not my fault that a quick Google

Yes, lots of delusional people out there... what does that prove?

show plenty of other sources documenting the same thing. Nixon would not be electable by today's Republican standards becasue he was "too liberal". Obama's record of governance is (if I'm being generous) that of a "Conserva-crat", like Hillary.

No this is just far-left crankery...

I know a bait and switch when I see it quite well, and the Polifact article attempts a pretty poor one by nit-picking, parsing, and otherwise distoring the poll findings to try to make it what they want the data to say, rather than what it does, in fact, say.

OK. Same with the Atlantic article then? Anything that doesn't agree with your theory is wrong, got it!

Concession accepted.

You didn't actually put forth a complete argument, just listed a bunch of far-left talking points... yes, some people actually think this... this is all you've proven. I'm not going to take the time to pick apart each one when you respond with "read a book"

And, if anyone needed definitive proof you have no argument...

Your argument is "some people believe this" and "you'll find my argument that Obama believes this in a book" OK! How many hours a day are you posting this kind of crap online a day hoping to have an effect on the election?

 

[dudalb]

Actually, it is. Instead of debating the facts, he's simply saying "you can't trust the source", which is the classic ad hom: disclaiming the source.

Actually, criticizing the source is perfectly legitimate and otfen important;but you have to offer evidence as to why the source should not be trusted.

 

[dudalb]

Tragically, this is all true. Not tragic because Trump won't be president, but tragic because Hillary will be. I doubt we've had 2 worse choices for president ever.

Yeah, it is a poor choice.
Although for me it is a no brainer;Hilary will probably be a bad president;but Trump would be a total disaster as president.

 

[KwamiFabu]

The government isn't punishing anyone for having a dissenting opinion (nor is it likely to with the 1st Amendment and all).

*coffLoisLernercoffcoff*

Frankly what it sounds like to me like you're saying that people like Trump should be able to say whatever disgusting crap they want without people calling them on. BS, bigots like Trump can say whatever they want. Just the same, people can call them bigots for saying it. That's what free speech actually is in this country.

Unless of course you question the "consensus" on anthropogenic climate change, in which case Loretta Lynch wants to throw you in jail.

 

[Tony Stark]

*coffLoisLernercoffcoff*
Unless of course you question the "consensus" on anthropogenic climate change, in which case Loretta Lynch wants to throw you in jail.

Both a bunch of outright nonsense.

 

[Puppycow]

Unless of course you question the "consensus" on anthropogenic climate change, in which case Loretta Lynch wants to throw you in jail.

Evidence?

 

[Puppycow]

*coffLoisLernercoffcoff*
Unless of course you question the "consensus" on anthropogenic climate change, in which case Loretta Lynch wants to throw you in jail.

Both a bunch of outright nonsense.

Anyway, I looked into it and it's a big fat nothing-burger. In answer to a question from a senator, she said that the question of a civil action (that means not a criminal action, i.e., it doesn't involve "throwing anyone in jail") had been "discussed", not that she had any plans to actually take any action.

On the other hand, Sen. James Inhofe has advocated for "criminal investigations" of climate scientists, and Michael Mann was the target of an investigation by VA attorney general Ken Cuccinelli:

Sen. Inhofe inquisition seeking ways to criminalize and prosecute 17 leading climate scientists

Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation

So apparently it's Inhofe and Cuccinelli who want to throw you in jail if you disagree with their views on climate science.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Tragically, this is all true. Not tragic because Trump won't be president, but tragic because Hillary will be. I doubt we've had 2 worse choices for president ever.

Yup. Both parties are fielding their weakest candidates. People are only going to vote because they hate the other candidate so much. I think that low voter turnout will favor Trump.

 

[Puppycow]

Yup. Both parties are fielding their weakest candidates. People are only going to vote because they hate the other candidate so much. I think that low voter turnout will favor Trump.

Not really. The Republicans are, but if you think Sanders would make a stronger candidate than Clinton that's only because he hasn't had the intense scrutiny and attacks yet that would come if he were to become the nominee.

 

[NoahFence]

Not really. The Republicans are, but if you think Sanders would make a stronger candidate than Clinton that's only because he hasn't had the intense scrutiny and attacks yet that would come if he were to become the nominee.

Yea, I can't wait to see them dig up 40 years of the same consistent message, as opposed to Drumpf, who does a 180 from the beginning of a paragraph to the end.

 

[lobosrul]

Not really. The Republicans are, but if you think Sanders would make a stronger candidate than Clinton that's only because he hasn't had the intense scrutiny and attacks yet that would come if he were to become the nominee.

Come on there are were plenty of Dem candidates out there better than Clinton.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Not really. The Republicans are, but if you think Sanders would make a stronger candidate than Clinton that's only because he hasn't had the intense scrutiny and attacks yet that would come if he were to become the nominee.

People keep saying that, but there's no evidence for it. You're comparing predicted future poll results to real, present-time poll results. If we're gonna play that game, I might as well say "You can't support Clinton, because she'll lose once she gets indicted."

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

It seems incredibly irresponsible for the democratic leadership to have just sailed ahead hoping for the best instead of assessing just how bad their situation was with Hillary.

It may be human nature to get all defensive about your candidate and screech "nothing happened" just because there's only a couple hundred FBI agents on this. But it isn't very smart. It's what will get Trump elected if Hillary goes all the way to the nomination.

Because they can't help themselves, it is probably better that indictments, resignations, pardons, or whatever happens before the convention. So they have a chance to save themselves with Bernie.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

It may be human nature to get all defensive about your candidate and screech "nothing happened" just because there's only a couple hundred FBI agents on this. But it isn't very smart. It's what will get Trump elected if Hillary goes all the way to the nomination.

Because they can't help themselves, it is probably better that indictments, resignations, pardons, or whatever happens before the convention. So they have a chance to save themselves with Bernie.

For the DNC, a Sanders presidency is much scarier than a Trump presidency.

Trump would actually be pretty good for them, because he represents everything they hate about the Republicans. He would make it easy for them to consolidate their base. Sanders, on the other hand, would shift the power over to the liberals...and by that I mean liberal liberals, not neo-liberals like Clinton.

It's already looking pretty bad for them as it is. I'm not sure that they'll be able to get enough Sanders supporters to vote for Clinton by waving the Trump boogey-man in front of them. There is unrest.

 

[Senex]

For the DNC, a Sanders presidency is much scarier than a Trump presidency.

You must not be paying attention. Trump wants to spend 12 billion dollars on a wall between the US and Mexico that would cost billions a year on top of that to upkeep. Mexico will pay for the wall or he will institute tariffs and cancel diplomatic and business leaders visas. He wants to bar Muslims from entering the country. He wants to deport millions of people. He wants us to quit NATO. He wants crazy tariffs. He wants to tear up treaties that took a great deal to negotiate. He wants to make abortion a prisonable offense. His health care plan is unworkable. He will prosecute Hillary Clinton. He will stop funding space exploration. He will be unpredictable. He will shut down parts of the internet and bring back waterboarding and even worse torture.

That's just off the top of my head. Does Bernie really scare you more?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It's already looking pretty bad for them as it is. I'm not sure that they'll be able to get enough Sanders supporters to vote for Clinton by waving the Trump boogey-man in front of them. There is unrest.

Nonsense, at least at the moment. Polls show both Sanders and Clinton with enough general support to beat Trump. If there was a Sanders/Clinton crossover problem it would showing now. And it there was such a problem I'd bet on seeing a Sanders/Clinton or Clinton/Sanders ticket.

 

[Ladewig]

You must not be paying attention. Trump wants to spend 12 billion dollars on a wall between the US and Mexico that would cost billions a year on top of that to upkeep.

Speaking of that I recently learned something. Of the ~11 million illegals, half are not from Mexico. We cannot just dump them over the Mexican border. Each would have to be repatriated to the country of origin. And that repatriation isn't going to involve driving them back, because Mexico is not going to let a bus full of undocumented folks into their country. The same goes for trains. So we will need a small fleet of airplanes or fleet of boats to move 5.5 million people.

Mexico will pay for the wall or he will institute tariffs and cancel diplomatic and business leaders visas. He wants to bar Muslims from entering the country. He wants to deport millions of people. He wants us to quit NATO. He wants crazy tariffs. He wants to tear up treaties that took a great deal to negotiate. He wants to make abortion a prisonable offense. His health care plan is unworkable. He will prosecute Hillary Clinton. He will stop funding space exploration. He will be unpredictable. He will shut down parts of the internet and bring back waterboarding and even worse torture.

That's just off the top of my head. Does Bernie really scare you more?

I will agree that that list looks frightening, unconstitutional, and unpractical. But do we have any evidence that Trump wants to do those things? Sure he has championed those ideas during the primaries, but is that enough to say that Trump wants to implement any of them?

I am willing to say I'm very scared of Trump because he has no political experience and appears to have little or no understanding of how the federal government works. But I am not convinced he wants to do all the things on the list. I say he is just BS-ing his way to the front of the pack by telling stories that some people want to hear.

 

[Ladewig]

For the DNC, a Sanders presidency is much scarier than a Trump presidency.

Trump would actually be pretty good for them, because he represents everything they hate about the Republicans.

Disagree. Cruz is much more symbolic of everything the Democrats hate about the Republicans. Trump is running because he wants power, but Cruz is running because he wants power AND he is on a mission from God. Trump may claim that he, personally, is more moral than anyone on the left; but Cruz will claim the entire Republican Party is more moral than the Democrats.

 

[angrysoba]

Speaking of that I recently learned something. Of the ~11 million illegals, half are not from Mexico. We cannot just dump them over the Mexican border. Each would have to be repatriated to the country of origin. And that repatriation isn't going to involve driving them back, because Mexico is not going to let a bus full of undocumented folks into their country. The same goes for trains. So we will need a small fleet of airplanes or fleet of boats to move 5.5 million people.




I will agree that that list looks frightening, unconstitutional, and unpractical. But do we have any evidence that Trump wants to do those things? Sure he has championed those ideas during the primaries, but is that enough to say that Trump wants to implement any of them?

I am willing to say I'm very scared of Trump because he has no political experience and appears to have little or no understanding of how the federal government works. But I am not convinced he wants to do all the things on the list. I say he is just BS-ing his way to the front of the pack by telling stories that some people want to hear.

Maybe it's BS and maybe it isn't. But if he gets in and implements these states policies you will have no excuse that he never told you he would do it.