Trump triples down on George W. Bush’s responsibility for 9/11

[Oceander]

sinkspur wrote above:
[[ Trump would be the first president elected in the modern age with no constituency in Congress. ]]

Considering the behavior of the current Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who would WANT THEM as "one's constituency" ????

Try putting it in real terms:  without any sort of a constituency in Congress, how does a president protect himself or herself from being, for example, impeached?  Or from being simply ignored and his/her policy aims ignored?  Without a constituency in Congress, the only thing the president can do is veto - or just use executive orders a la Obama - and eventually with enough vetoes he or she will have alienated a sufficient number of members from both parties that they may start joining up against that president.

In other words, you complain about how chummy the GOP in the Congress seem to get with democrats/liberals, but the person you seem to prefer as president - Trump - would simply drive them further together.

[Fishrrman]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ And I realize that there is a certain zero-sum logic to politics and elections (a logic that doesn't apply to economics, contra liberals), which means that, as an old song went (to paraphrase):  even if you choose not to vote, you still have cast a vote, and if you do not cast a vote against Hillary Clinton (or whatever other criminal the DNC runs), then you have as good as cast a vote for her; ]]

Doesn't apply to me, my friend.

My vote in the election for president will count for nothing.
I could vote Republican.
I could vote third party.
I could even vote democrat (I'd just as soon die first).
Won't make a bit of difference insofar as the outcome is concerned.
That's pre-ordained here.

An interesting historical tidbit:
In my state, in the 2006 Senatorial election, the "Republican" candidate won 10% of the votes cast. TEN percent.
(Like Yogi Berra said, "you can look it up!")

Aside:
I -did- vote for the Republican in that election, of course.
I always vote(d) for the Republican candidates.
And back then, I thought he got a higher number than that, around 16-17%.
But, before I posted this, I looked it up!

[massadvj]

His followers are dumbasses. They're mad, but they're burying their objectivity because Trump trashes people they hate.

If his supporters have lost their philosophical objectivity (which I agree in many cases they have), it seems to me many of his detractors have lost a great deal of their objectivity in terms of evaluating Trump's impact on the political landscape, his likelihood of winning, and whether he might actually have the capability to be a great executive (his political philosophy notwithstanding).

[Oceander]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ And I realize that there is a certain zero-sum logic to politics and elections (a logic that doesn't apply to economics, contra liberals), which means that, as an old song went (to paraphrase):  even if you choose not to vote, you still have cast a vote, and if you do not cast a vote against Hillary Clinton (or whatever other criminal the DNC runs), then you have as good as cast a vote for her; ]]

Doesn't apply to me, my friend.

My vote in the election for president will count for nothing.
I could vote Republican.
I could vote third party.
I could even vote democrat (I'd just as soon die first).
Won't make a bit of difference insofar as the outcome is concerned.
That's pre-ordained here.

An interesting historical tidbit:
In my state, in the 2006 Senatorial election, the "Republican" candidate won 10% of the votes cast. TEN percent.
(Like Yogi Berra said, "you can look it up!")

Aside:
I -did- vote for the Republican in that election, of course.
I always vote(d) for the Republican candidates.
And back then, I thought he got a higher number than that, around 16-17%.
But, before I posted this, I looked it up!

So you're just going for the angry angst thing here, then.  Your ball won't be played in the game, so you're just going to make yourself feel important by doing whatever you can to eff things up.  Wow.  You're really principled there.

[mystery-ak]

Come on now...Trumps followers are not dumb asses...haven't we had enough of that the last few days..

[Fishrrman]

Once-Ler wrote above:
[[ I wonder is Trump in charge of his own destiny?  He speaks with such a fractured cadence and structure that the meaning can be easily misinterpreted.  Perhaps that is by design, but it won't/shouldn't last as the spotlight focuses tighter upon him. ]]

That's a very thoughtful comment.

But, it begs the question:
WHO could be behind Mr. Trump, pulling "his strings"?

This is obvious with obama.

But with Trump --- who...?

[EdinVA]

Uh, he can't get any of his policies enacted if Congress doesn't go along.  No tax increases, no single payer health care, no driving 12 million illegals out of the country in two years.

Trump's a chump.  If he were to get elected, he wouldn't get a damned thing he wants enacted into law.

The laws are already in place to deport illegals, the government already gets tax increases automatically as most salaries increase so taxes go up accordingly.
If he proposes things the people want and a republican congress fails to act, who will get blamed?

[sinkspur]

Come on now...Trumps followers are not dumb asses...haven't we had enough of that the last few days..

OK boss. I won't refer to any of Trump's followers as dumbasses anymore.

[Oceander]

If his supporters have lost their philosophical objectivity (which I agree in many cases they have), it seems to me many of his detractors have lost a great deal of their objectivity in terms of evaluating Trump's impact on the political landscape, his likelihood of winning, and whether he might actually have the capability to be a great executive (his political philosophy notwithstanding).

Evaluating Trump's likelihood of winning is not that difficult:  look past the gorilla-chest-thumping of the wanna-be alpha males in the angry-white-conservative coterie, and you see Trump seriously alienating a lot of the noncommitted voters any candidate must have in order to win the election.  And that should not surprise anyone because when you run an essentially negative campaign, the question is not how many unconvinced voters will you convince to join you, but how many will you scare into the arms of your opponent.  Too many people really don't seem to understand, for example, exactly what a xenophobe like Trump sounds like to the ears of hispanic Americans - both the native born and the legally admitted/naturalized - because they are able to think through the necessary mechanics of how his xenophobia will be put into place:  federal immigration police will have very large incentive to treat every person who even slightly smells like a "mexican" as presumptively an illegal and to stop them and demand proof of their right to be in the country; and those who are citizens, particularly native-born, have a very real fear that they may be arrested simply because they cannot prove what amounts to proving a negative - that they are in fact citizens who are entitled to be in the US and to be left alone.  First off, for those of you who were born here, how many of you carry a certified copy of your birth certificate with you?  As a practical matter that's the only way you can prove your right to be in the US as a native-born citizen because a driver's license won't cut it because you don't have to prove citizenship to get one (in fact, illegals can get them with ease).  Second, for those of you who were naturalized, how many of you carry certified copies of your naturalization papers?  As a practical matter that's the only way you can prove your right to be in the US as a naturalized citizen because, as pointed out above, a driver's license won't cut it.

So, you have on the one hand a leftist in the DNC who will not help get the economy moving, and on the other hand you have a xenophobe in the GOP who is going to target you for intrusive law enforcement simply because you look hispanic, or have an hispanic last name.  Who are you going to vote for?

[Oceander]

Come on now...Trumps followers are not dumb asses...haven't we had enough of that the last few days..

If they wish to insist on labeling us as "haters" then they'll just have to put up with the less incendiary label of dumbass.

[sinkspur]

The laws are already in place to deport illegals, the government already gets tax increases automatically as most salaries increase so taxes go up accordingly.
If he proposes things the people want and a republican congress fails to act, who will get blamed?

American voters don't want tax increases. Nor do they want single payer healthcare.

A GOP Congress wouldn't even take up bills that increase taxes or enact singlepayer healthcare.  And the country would breathe a sigh of relief.

[Oceander]

Once-Ler wrote above:
[[ I wonder is Trump in charge of his own destiny?  He speaks with such a fractured cadence and structure that the meaning can be easily misinterpreted.  Perhaps that is by design, but it won't/shouldn't last as the spotlight focuses tighter upon him. ]]

That's a very thoughtful comment.

But, it begs the question:
WHO could be behind Mr. Trump, pulling "his strings"?

This is obvious with obama.

But with Trump --- who...?

Considering his very long history of statements and actions with clear political implications, the DNC; that ought to be pretty obvious as well.

[EdinVA]

American voters don't want tax increases. Nor do they want single payer healthcare.

A GOP Congress wouldn't even take up bills that increase taxes or enact singlepayer healthcare.  And the country would breathe a sigh of relief.

So, the checks and balances work?

[Fishrrman]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ So you're just going for the angry angst thing here, then.  Your ball won't be played in the game, so you're just going to make yourself feel important by doing whatever you can to eff things up.  Wow.  You're really principled there. ]]

If "one's ball won't be played in the game", then why bother going to the game?

That's posed as a serious question.

Why be forced to be part of "a game" in which you've been marginalized to the point where you no longer have any ability to influence the outcome?

Why do you think I'm going to feel "important" about it?
Quite the opposite, "the game" (at least here) is no longer worth my effort because I can't change "the outcome" in any way (at least in the contests for president, House, Senate).

I will continue to "play the game" in state and local contests.
Got November 3rd on my appointments calendar to vote.
I'll be there.

Aside (with a repeat of what I wrote above):
"Why be forced to be part of "a game" in which you've been marginalized to the point where you no longer have any ability to influence the outcome?"

This is EXACTLY why "outsiders" like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are doing so well this time around -- because there are MILLIONS of Americans whose "ball" ain't bein' played in the game any more!

[Formerly Once-Ler]

If his supporters have lost their philosophical objectivity (which I agree in many cases they have), it seems to me many of his detractors have lost a great deal of their objectivity in terms of evaluating Trump's impact on the political landscape, his likelihood of winning, and whether he might actually have the capability to be a great executive (his political philosophy notwithstanding).

I agree.  I know I am unhealthy obsessed with Trump to such a point that I have taken breaks from this forum because I became repulsed by the vile and bitter things I was posting to people I admire and respect.  I sometimes feel like a mad man who knows he is insane.  That knowledge does not fix the problem but it does offer me the insight to look outside myself and separate my frustration.

I wonder if any Trump supporters know and can admit they have lost their philosophical objectivity?

[mystery-ak]

OK boss. I won't refer to any of Trump's followers as dumbasses anymore.

...thanks

[sinkspur]

So, the checks and balances work?

So why support a rodeo clown whose policies would get shot down by Congress?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Once-Ler wrote above:
[[ I wonder is Trump in charge of his own destiny?  He speaks with such a fractured cadence and structure that the meaning can be easily misinterpreted.  Perhaps that is by design, but it won't/shouldn't last as the spotlight focuses tighter upon him. ]]

That's a very thoughtful comment.

But, it begs the question:
WHO could be behind Mr. Trump, pulling "his strings"?

This is obvious with obama.

But with Trump --- who...?

I don't think anyone is pulling Trump's strings...I think circumstances cause Trump to react.  Trump has changed his positions on several issues because of supporter reaction.  It goes back as far as Trump's Obama birther stance 3 years ago.  While he has not rejected his previous position he no longer talks about it.

Trump has stepped into other messes where he has had to back track like Syrian refugees, POWs, and FOX boycotts.  He is not in control sometimes and has to quickly nuance into a position more in following his supporters.

[massadvj]

Too many people really don't seem to understand, for example, exactly what a xenophobe like Trump sounds like to the ears of hispanic Americans - both the native born and the legally admitted/naturalized - because they are able to think through the necessary mechanics of how his xenophobia will be put into place...

And yet Chris Wallace noted that Trump spoke to a group of Hispanic business leaders this week -- a group the media had assumed would be hostile -- and half the people in the room supported the guy.  I think you are overthinking the power of specific political positions, and underthinking the power of celebrity and being a pop icon in America as it exists today.  That Hispanic lady waving her flag screaming Meester Troomp, Meester Troomp!  He gonna fix everything!  It's not rational, but then people are not rational, a fact that Trump the brilliant marketer completely understands.

If Trump wins the GOP nomination I predict he will wipe the floor against Hillary Clinton.  It will not even be close.  It will be cast as a race between a successful and super-competent outsider who will go in and clean up Washington, versus a failed and corrupt professional politician from the establishment who personally surrendered the USA's credibility as a world leader.  No contest.

[massadvj]

I don't think anyone is pulling Trump's strings...I think circumstances cause Trump to react.  Trump has changed his positions on several issues because of supporter reaction.  It goes back as far as Trump's Obama birther stance 3 years ago.  While he has not rejected his previous position he no longer talks about it.

Trump has stepped into other messes where he has had to back track like Syrian refugees, POWs, and FOX boycotts.  He is not in control sometimes and has to quickly nuance into a position more in following his supporters.

What I see is a guy who can reposition himself on a whim and pay no political price.  That makes him unbeatable from a marketing standpoint.  All he has to do is continually move around the ring and run out the clock.

[massadvj]

Note this is the only thread that appears in the info center, which means for the last hour or so no one on this site has posted anything about anything other than Trump.  How do you ignore a man with that kind of power to command the attention of people, even people like us, who are well-informed and politically astute?  It's scary, I tell you.  Downright scary.  And awesome at the same time.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

What I see is a guy who can reposition himself on a whim and pay no political price. 

Yes!  Very succinctly put.  I see the same thing, however, I don't know why Trump can say stuff that would kill an ordinary campaign.  That is what is driving me batty.  Why do normally ideologically driven conservatives give Trump a pass?  Is it because few voters are actually focused this early or...I dunno what?
 

That makes him unbeatable from a marketing standpoint.  All he has to do is continually move around the ring and run out the clock.

That is true if it lasts, but without knowing why Trump is untouchable I'm not predicting anything.

[DCPatriot]

Donald Trump isn't doing a damned thing other than ginning up hatred and class division. 

And he's turning you into the world's biggest sucker because you have been thoroughly blinded to what his actual values are.

When you go to measure the worth of a man (or a woman), you pay attention to what they do, not what they say, and you pay attention to what they say only when they aren't in a position to spin it for the reason its being tested.  This is what you have if you actually pay attention to what Donald Trump really believes, based on his actions, and on what he's said when he wasn't running for nomination:  you have a big-state, crony capitalist whose policy preferences are decidedly left of center.

I am simply aghast at how many republicans/conservatives have by now shown themselves to be utterly stupid, to be intellectually vacuous cows on a par with the idiots who voted for Obama in 2012.

Do I detest Trump?  Yes, I do.  I detest him because not only is he a statist crony capitalist whose real policy preferences tend toward big government that exercises its power for the benefit of the politically-connected oligopoly, but because he's a liar and a hypocrite over and above jack-asses like Sanders who at least has the decency to admit that he's a socialist.

  RE:  the bold above...Said it a hundred times already.  I don't give a damn about his values.   The ONLY value I like is that his name isn't Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.

As with the lottery...you MUST buy a ticket if you have any expectation of winning.

Trump is attracting MORE than enough voters to cancel out you 'principled' guys.  Thank God.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Trump is attracting MORE than enough voters to cancel out you 'principled' guys.  Thank God.

Principled!!!  Those are fighting words DC!

[massadvj]

That is true if it lasts, but without knowing why Trump is untouchable I'm not predicting anything.

He is untouchable because he has branded himself on attributes not related to political ideology.  Therefore, he cannot be defeated based on political ideology.  In business school parlance, he has shifted the paradigm.  And he has done so while those of us who have been at this a while continue to scratch our heads in disbelief.