quote:

As cited above in this thread, Trump says that he does not support a single-payor system.

He's probably going to be the one who wins, so I hope that is true.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:

quote:

As cited above in this thread, Trump says that he does not support a single-payor system.

He's probably going to be the one who wins, so I hope that is true.

Well, if he does win, I believe there is no chance that single-payor would be able to make it through Congress anyway.

I heard another interview with Trump where he stated that he would not favor executive orders because he believed that the President must get things through Congress. He said that such was the way our system of government was set up. It gave me a measure of comfort that Trump was thinking of Constitutional limitations and his role.

But, we never know. Obama, the promised uniter became the divider in chief and, maybe, our worst President ever.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
I have no heart ; I want people dying I the streets!

Repeal every word of Obamacare.

Based on turnout models of < 150,000 I'll predict a Cruz victory tomorrow night.

Based on your avatar I'll say you do have a heart. It's just two sizes too small...lol

LOL

Donald Trump loves his poll numbers. Consider this one:

Gallup: 60 Percent of Americans Hold Unfavorable View of Donald Trump
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/...-negative-image.aspx

As the Iowa caucuses get underway tonight in the Hawkeye state, it's important to take a look ahead at the general election.

According to new polling from Gallup, an astonishing 60 percent of Americans view GOP frontrunner Donald Trump unfavorably. This number is higher than any unfavorable number either Hillary or Bill Clinton have ever held, even while deeply embroiled in scandal.

At this point (two-week average through Jan. 27), 33% of Americans view Trump favorably and 60% unfavorably. It's that 60% unfavorable figure that I can focus on here.

Hillary Clinton currently has a 52% unfavorable rating among all Americans, while Jeb Bush is at 45%, Chris Christie 38%, Ted Cruz 37%, Marco Rubio 33%, Bernie Sanders 31% and Ben Carson 30%. Trump's 60% is clearly well above all of these. Putting his favorable and unfavorable ratings together yields a net favorable of -27 for Trump, far above the -10 for Clinton and for Bush, the next lowest among the major candidates.

By comparison, Bill Clinton's highest unfavorable rating in Gallup's history of rating him has been 59% in March 2001 after he left office amid criticism of his pardons and issues relating to White House furniture. The highest unfavorable for his wife, Hillary, came in that same March 2001 poll -- at 53% -- a figure she has matched several times in the current campaign.



Trump could possibly overcome these numbers, but it's highly unlikely considering how many voting demographics he's already lost any chance of winning over.

Donald Trump may win the GOP primary, but he'll surely lose the general.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k...onald-trump-n2112974

Yes, because everyone in this nation has been polled,, and everyone in this nation is honest when they answer polls, and no polls are ever skewed, manipulated, or simply incorrect, and everyone who answers these polls, votes in the presidential election.

I am so freaking sick of people holding up stupid goddamned polls, as if they predict the future. How'd that work out in the 2012 presidential election? Were those polls accurate? Give that shit a rest.

You know how we recruit folks on the forum to go vote for various projects or causes? Oft times we will cast the vote asked whether we truly would or not given an unbiased look. That's what generates these polls for Trump.

He's plenty favorable.

quote:

Gallup: 60 Percent of Americans Hold Unfavorable View of Donald Trump

Do you think these polls are done to let the candidates know where they stand? Or do they run these types of polls to let the media know how to adjust their hit pieces?

Stu Bergierre (@WorldOfStu on Twitter) of the Glenn Beck show is tweeting one Trump quote every five minutes today.

No matter where you stand on Trump, some of them are quite amusing.

quote:

Originally posted by Protein anchor:
You know how we recruit folks on the forum to go vote for various projects or causes? That's what generates these polls for Trump.

Exactly. Do you think maybe the Drudge polls could be that way? Huh? Maybe?

Were we talking about a Drudge poll?

Sure. I do think it goes both ways. However, 90% of the media is hot to pound Trump. Thus, the number of polls painting him in a bad light will greatly outnumber those that do not.

Let's just wait and see.

"Who is Donald Trump?"

The better question may be, "What is Donald Trump?" The answer: A giant middle finger from
average Americans to the political and media establishment.

Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents. But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demosocialists and the "Republicans in Name Only." They know there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates. Ben Carson is not an "establishment" candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson, and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio). The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse. Besides, lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things. Stranger things have happened. (The nation elected a Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)


Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014 and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016? Why? Trump did not come from out of nowhere. His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.


No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates will slash federal
spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban
Development, Energy, etc.). Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education. (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.) No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation's major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire.


Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with:
Anyone named Bush
Anyone named Clinton
Anyone who's held political office
Political correctness
Illegal immigration
Massive unemployment
Phony "official" unemployment and inflation figures
Welfare waste and fraud
People faking disabilities to go on the dole
VA waiting lists
TSA airport groping
ObamaCare
The Federal Reserve's money-printing schemes
Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine
Michelle Obama's vacations
Michelle Obama's food police
Barack Obama's golf
Barack Obama's arrogant and condescending lectures
Barack Obama's criticism/hatred of America
Valerie Jarrett
"Holiday trees"
Hollywood hypocrites
Global warming nonsense
Cop killers
Gun confiscation threats
Stagnant wages
Chevy Volts
Clock boy
Pajama boy
Mattress girl
Boys in girls' bathrooms
Whiny, spoiled college students who can't even place the Civil War in the correct century
. . .and that's just the short list.


Trump supporters believe that no Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues. They certainly know that none of the
establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them, and Trump is their way of saying, "Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!" The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains. (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier. All the others argue that the voters will eventually "come to their senses" and support an establishment candidate.)


But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage. It needs a new engine installed by
experts--and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it. Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned. Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage. Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage. He won't hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.


"How dare they revolt!" the "elites" are bellowing. Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it. "But Trump will hand the election to Clinton!" That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved "Maverick" McCain down GOP throats in 2008--knowing he would lose to Obama. But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins, she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates. They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America's greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation. A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system. But no nation can survive both--and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that. The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on. At some point it will be destroyed by its debt.


Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wanders through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do
need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for
decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world's glaciers are not melting; and Rosie O'Donnell is a fat pig.


Is Trump the perfect candidate? Of course not. Neither was Ronald Reagan. But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant. One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands. One jihadist poisoning a city's water supply could kill tens of thousands. One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions. Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don't care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations. While Attorney General Loretta Lynch's greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his three wives and who thinks 72 virgins are waiting for him in paradise.


The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation. They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts. While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much. You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016, his or her cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we've seen before. The washed-up
has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge. The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots. Whether it is Bush's Karl Rove or Clinton's John Podesta who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little. If the establishment wins, America loses.



Don Fredrick
December 10, 2015

The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg and wrote extensively about Obama even before he was elected and he did it with facts and more facts.


http://thecompleteobamatimeline.com/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by Protein anchor:
Let's just wait and see.

Radical thinking!!

I'll publish my findings!

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I am so freaking sick of people holding up stupid goddamned polls, as if they predict the future. How'd that work out in the 2012 presidential election? Were those polls accurate? Give that shit a rest.

Yeah, folks ignore the fact that the polls that placed Romney ahead of Barry up til election day got it all wrong.

If politicians and media outlets can out right lie about issues to fit an agenda, polls certainly can also. It's all part of the same system.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I am so freaking sick of people holding up stupid goddamned polls, as if they predict the future. How'd that work out in the 2012 presidential election? Were those polls accurate? Give that shit a rest.

Yeah, folks ignore the fact that the polls that placed Romney ahead of Barry up til election day got it all wrong.

If politicians and media outlets can out right lie about issues to fit an agenda, polls certainly can also. It's all part of the same system.

They didn't just have Romney ahead, some of them had him winning in a landslide (cough...Dick Morris...cough).

I just hope some of these single digit midgets wake up and smell the burning toast....you are not going to be president!

Now just get out of the way, because the Trump Train WILL run you over! Choo choo!

As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto observes:

"The crisis of journalistic objectivity has arisen because journalists routinely attempt to impose a consensus that exists within their professional class (one of the “upper realms of American society,” in Goodwin’s phrase) on the population as a whole. That explains the journalistic class’s hostility toward Trump (as distinct from his hostility toward particular journalists).

It also helps explain his appeal. Tucker Carlson puts it this way in an insightful essay for Politico:

When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn’t been long. That’s not just a talking point about political correctness. It’s the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can’t fix a problem if you don’t have the words to describe it. You can’t even think about it clearly.

This depressing fact made Trump’s political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it’s thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he’s wrong. It’s especially exciting when you suspect he’s right.

"The cultural authority of journalism rests not only on its practitioners’ fealty to the facts but also their willingness and ability to recognize and respect the actually existing diversity of opinion in the population. In that regard (and for a variety of reasons), that authority has been eroding for decades. Donald Trump is the first national politician to challenge that authority directly and persistently. Little wonder that, for all his flaws, he has found a receptive public."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/qu...authority-1454094702

chellim, how many posts do you have in this thread?

Several... it's a discussion, right?
There's a lot to like about Donald Trump, but he's not the only viable candidate, especially not before the voting has even started.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Jeb Bush is at 45%

Jeb Bush? Is he still alive? I'm shocked that 45% of people polled think of him at all, positively or negatively.