Update on our Trump Collapse Pool

Back in July we launched a pool to guess when Donald Trump’s campaign collapses. The winner or winners would receive their very free copy of The Politics of Crazy.

Those who predicted that Trump would soldier on through the convention and beyond are starting to look better and better. Here’s an update on the results so far:

Turtles Run 1-Aug-15
Ivar 6-Aug-15
flypusher 13-Aug-15
menaartgallery 14-Aug-15
JeffAtWolfCreekMicro 26-Aug-15
easyfortytwo 27-Aug-15
fiftyohm 3-Sep-15
stephen 7-Sep-15
ANON 16-Sep-15
Griffin 17-Sep-15
Ronjan 21-Sep-15
2keeplearning 11-Oct-15
Kebe 15-Oct-15
texan5142 16-Oct-15
way2gosassy 20-Oct-15
Chris Ladd 1-Nov-15
Ryan Ashfyre 10-Nov-15
Firebug 21-Nov-15
Treeman 1-Jan-16
pbasch 15-Jan-16
James Montgomery 1-Feb-16
johngalt 10-Feb-16
the4thpip 15-Feb-16
dowripple 29-Feb-16
lomamonster 29-Feb-16
objv 9-Mar-16
Harley 15-Mar-16
David 17-Mar-16
Hans Messersmith 22-Mar-16
1mime 1-Apr-16
tuttabellamia 1-Apr-16
CarolDuhart2 2-Apr-16
RightonRush 30-May-16
Doug 8-Jun-16
Anand Rangarajan 1-Jul-16
csarneson 1-Jul-16
Tom 18-Jul-16
briandrush 18-Jul-16
Gerrit Botha 18-Jul-16
jwthomas 18-Jul-16
vikinghou 21-Jul-16
Cpl. Cam 13-Oct-16
EJ 25-Oct-16
Rob Ambrose 8-Nov-16
n1cholas 9-Nov-16
Houston-stay-at-Homer 2-Feb-17
Mark Maros 9-Nov-16
duncancairncross 15-Nov-16

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
94 comments on “Update on our Trump Collapse Pool
  1. Rob Ambrose says:

    That shooting of the 6 y/o is pretty interesting. Apparently the body cameras are very disturbing.

    Body cameras are very quickly proving their worth. Without them, this is likely a “justified homicide”.

    Incidentally, the more I think about this, the more I think it’s more of a fundamental issue with policing in general then one purely of racism (although clearly racism plays a large part).

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the FBI doesn’t do community level policing do they? That’s pretty important. Policing is expensive business and if every community is responsible for their own policing, that seems like a liability waiting to happen, especially in smaller towns, with regards to being properly trained, as well as corruption.

    I think a model like Canada is far preferable. The RCMP is the national force responsible for all of the national investigations much like the FBI. However, they also police communities (if the community wishes. Often bigger towns/cities will have their own force, but in small towns and rural areas, you’re much likelier to be pulled over for speeding by an RCMP officer then a local cop).

    The benefits for this system are pretty significant. For one, RCMP officers are trained to a very high standard and are generally very professional. Secondly, its like the military where you join, do basic training at the RCMP training centre, and then get posted to wherever they want to send you. They have a policy that rookie cops don’t go to their hometown. This keeps professionalism intact as the cops on the beat typically don’t have preexisting relationships with the people they’re policing. The potential for abuse/corruption is pretty obvious if the guy pulling you over is the same guy that bullied you (or vice versa) in high school.

    On the other hand, its awfully hard to properly do your job when the guy you just pulled over while driving drunk is your childhood friend and drinking buddy.

    Just some Monday musings…

    • 1mime says:

      In many communities, there are small police units and this probably has strengths and weaknesses. The role of “sheriff” is the real power in counties. Elected and politically very connected, sheriffs (think Joe Arpaio in AZ) can be a force. The Canadian concept seems much better.

  2. flypusher says:

    For today’s episode of “Former GOP Presidential candidates-Where are they now?”, let’s check in with our old pal Michelle Bachman:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/11/08/bachman-convert-jews-before-jesus-comes.html

    Hey, Bibi will be in DC. Why don’t you try him first, while I buy up popcorn futures??

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Don’t worry Michelle. There’s no rush.

      • 1mime says:

        I guess Michelle and her husband have to find a new sector to target. They were “big” into the business of “gay conversion”. Now with greater acceptance societally and judicially, that market may be “drying up”. I am sooo glad she is history.

  3. 1mime says:

    This NYT interactive article on who is ascendant in the 2016 presidential nomination is interesting. We’ve all heard Rubio is on the way up…( In contrast to Bush’s 3 endorsement points since Labor Day, Rubio has received 22 — by far the most of any Republican candidate over that span)….. and he has also notched one of the most influential GOP donors, Paul Singer.
    (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/marco-rubio-gains-support-of-top-republican-fundraiser/)

    Now here’s some stats to reinforce trends.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/presidential-candidates-dashboard.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_up_20151109&nl=upshot&nlid=41048410&ref=headline&_r=0

  4. fiftyohm says:

    All this hoopla about The Donald, and nary a peep about those polyhedral grain elevators! Let’s spread the love!

    And BTW Chris – my prediction was, (and remains), 3 Sept 2016 – not 2015. This is a really big deal with me!

  5. El says:

    Been lurking here for awhile – thoughtful writing and actual intelligent (mostly) and respectful commentary.

    Been wondering if anyone told Donald he’ll have to put all his assets in a blind trust upon taking office? I predict that’s the day he drops out.

  6. Shiro17 says:

    Trump has one very good thing going for him: No other GOP candidate, not even Rubio, will come close to getting the Hispanic vote out in droves in 2016. Just from personal experience, Hispanic turnout may approach 100% if he wins the nomination, and they’ll all be voting because of him. So, there’s that.

    • 1mime says:

      Wait, that is not clear. Are you saying that the Hispanic vote will come out for Trump? Or, that there will be a huge Hispanic turn out because of Trump to vote for the Democratic candidate?

      • Shiro17 says:

        Some of the first words from his mouth were that Mexicans were rapists. There are multiple stories of Hispanic journalists and possible supporters getting put in physical danger at Trump rallies. He called for a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. His whole campaign strategy, at least at first, is to take advantage of white fear over Hispanics now moving to every corner of the country. Hispanics as a whole may not be particularly liberal or conservative, but they’re going to do everything in their power to stop Trump.

        Sorry. I’ve been hanging out with Brits too much lately and developed that understated humor.

      • 1mime says:

        I thought that was what you meant, just wasn’t sure. Thanks for clarification. Be careful hanging out with the Brits, they’ll have you pushing for a parliamentary form of government (-:

      • Griffin says:

        I got the joke. But then again half my family is British so… what I’m saying is I appreciate your dry wit.

        However you are underestimating the Donald’s ability to backpedal if he made it to the general. Imagine if he said something along the lines of:

        “Look I just want to get rid of the BAD illegals! The rest of you can stay and I’ll get you the BEST jobs! And if you’re poor I’ll raise your food stamps and get you healthcare why not!”

        He has no ideological committments beyond simply “build a wall” and “more deportations”. Do not underestimate that which can not be shamed.

      • 1mime says:

        Truly possible, Griffin. We know how much the Don loves to build tall things!

      • Shiro17 says:

        Don’t know if he can put that genie back in the bottle. Thanks to all the media coverage he received over the summer and early fall, even people with the most marginal interest in politics know what he’s been saying. His own supporters might even mutiny if he tries to be nice to the Hispanic voting base (who, by definition, are all rightful citizens).

      • 1mime says:

        The “things” that work at one point in a campaign can become a trap if you need to make changes. And, you are correct that the Trump base is rabid on the issue of immigration. With newly selected House Majority Leader Paul Ryan insisting that there will be no immigration reform legislative action until after the 2016 election, these young Dreamers and others are in limbo. The entire system is frozen – law enforcement – ICE – the judiciary….It’s so unfortunate.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Who knows, maybe he’s not so nuts. I think that’s how the GW of China got built.

        The Ming dynasty got Mongolia to pay for it.

  7. duncancairncross says:

    Whats wrong with the Donald
    lots – he is terrible –
    BUT
    The others in the clown car are actually WORSE

    http://davidbrin.blogspot.co.nz/

    “The true issue dividing Donald Trump from the rest of the Republican Pack? He has realized something that strikes terror into the hearts of the Kochs and Murdochs and Saudis who have grown accustomed to treating the Republican Party as their private legislature. That the angry white men who make up the GOP’s core-base are ready for some populism to mix with their gruel of guns and confederate values.

    Hence, Trump has called — then pulled back — but will certainly call again for tax increases on the uber-rich, while Jeb Bush and the rest reiterate their wish for ever-lower rates for the skyrocketing oligarchy, long after Supply Side (Voodoo) “Economics” has been proved never to have made one successful outcome prediction.

    Ever. Even once at all. Ever.

    Heck, Trump has also spoken for campaign finance reform (if a bit hypocritically, given he’s a self-funding billionaire).

    Sure, he’s repulsively crazy in many of his own (entertaining) ways. But if Donald Trump is leveraging the disappointment of millions of angry white males, perhaps we should cheer a bit that at least he is pointing out: “hey, the foxes and goppers have been lying to you, like mad, too.””

    • 1mime says:

      At the end of the day, if Trump were to become President, he would want to be the best President he could and he would want America to be successful. I have no doubt that his campaign is flawed but I think he would ultimately do the right thing for our country. It would be an interesting tenure, that’s for sure.

      That said, I am not voting for him, because I subscribe to the Democratic Party platform. However, America would survive a Donald Trump as President better than a Rubio who is unprepared at this time, or a Cruz, who is absorbed by religious ideology and narcissism.

      We have a year to get this right. Let’s hope we do.

    • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

      “Heritage Action presidential Scorecard rates Ted Cruz near-perfect”

      http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/heritage-action-scorecard-rates-cruz-near-perfect-215635

      Needless to say if Ted Cruz is the closest thing to a perfect political creature on the political landscape, I never ever want to be right. But those Heritage Foundation guys tend to be very hardcore… like that nagging judgmental old crone that every 16th century Puritan village had : )

      I would imagine if the Heritage Foundations assessed my political positions that would determine that I would might all qualifications of being a human cockroach.

      Here is another excerpt stuck out in the article from Politico:

      “Bobby Jindal, who is running hard right in Iowa, receives among the more glowing reviews.”

      Do these people have eyes and ears like the rest of us? Have they not seen the “good works” that Bobby has done in the state Louisiana? And by good works I mean the horrific budgetary/financial ruin that has compromised further the living standards and education of ordinary citizens and ticked off state politicians from both parties?

      That gets you a “glowing review” all because of your rabid hatred of taxes, even the sensible ones that keeps a huge state like Louisiana functioning?

      • 1mime says:

        It’s the “Grover Norquist” syndrone. NO new tax is acceptable for ANY reason. Our country is growing in population and needs, yet the Republican Party position is that America’s budget is “capped” for infinity (unless, of course, it is for their priorities….Pentagon budget? Highway Trust Fund? etc, etc). Every tax dollar should be spent for necessary expenditures. “Whose” necessary expenses is the nub of the problem. A fair and effective tax system must reflect priorities that are most important to our country and the needs of the majority of its citizens (safety net and basic operations of a complex country – defense, infrastructure M&O, education, and other essential operations). If there are spending excesses, (there are) have the guts to deal with them separately, don’t make essential areas suffer.

        Ironically, there is a tax that can be justified but the GOP will not allow any consideration of it. I speak of increasing our gasoline tax, which is dedicated to infrastructure and has been capped for over 20 years – despite increases in vehicular traffic, and normal wear and tear over tiem. Our current gasoline prices average $2,00 less per gallon than just 3 years ago. This is due to an abundance of production and cheap energy. It makes perfect sense to me given the needs of our infrastructure,and very affordable retail gasoline rates, to raise gasoline taxes sufficient to repair our existing infrastructure and expand as needed and desirable. Sunset it if necessary, but now is the time. Consider how many cars we could take off the roads if we expanded rail in targeted high travel areas…or, added turnpikes, or loops, or improved airport and bridge capability. Consider the jobs that would be created while doing important infrastructure M & O. Instead, to partially fund a (three of six year plan) highway bill, they utilize revenue from a one-time asset sale, the oil in our strategic reserve, at a time when prices per barrel are at their lowest in decades!! This doesn’t make sense to me as a long term solution. It it were the Democrats proposing to pay only half of a program using revenues of strategic reserves, they would be excoriated by the Republicans. The hypocrisy is reprehensible.

      • flypusher says:

        “It’s the “Grover Norquist” syndrone. NO new tax is acceptable for ANY reason. ”

        Norquist-Ggggggggrrrrrrrr; that mofo so deserves to be hit by a cat5 hurricane, a 9.0 earthquake, and a wildfire, simultaneously. Then we’ll see how much he really likes that bathtub.

      • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

        To those who think federal government = bad, state governments = good… well I have a video for you!

        http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18822/how-does-your-state-rank-integrity

      • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

        Regrettably, the prolific corruption of state governments will have to take a back seat to another more important story burning like wild fire on social networks… that story of course is the fact Starbucks now hates Jesus.

        http://www.chron.com/news/article/Why-some-Christians-are-upset-at-Starbucks-new-6618451.php

        Let the War (via inert/bland graphic design) on Christianity begin!!! Happy Holidays!

  8. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Lifer, buddy….you have the wrong entry for me, and I’m sticking with it:

    From earlier this summer:
    “President Trump is going to be very disappointed in you all. He may even send his team of investigators to look into your birth certificates.

    I’m still sticking with February 3, 2017, two weeks after his inauguration.”

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      I probably should include my keen political insight as well:

      Houston-stay-at-Homer says:
      July 22, 2015 at 10:35 pm
      Hmmmm…Trump’s poll numbers below 3% for a week?

      This should actually be pretty simple.

      Election is on November 8, 2016, and Trump polls in the low 50s to win the election.

      Inauguration Day is January 20, 2017, first day on the job, poll numbers in the low 60s because you gotta support what you are stuck with.

      “Help, a weasel is pretending to be my hairpiece” becomes a national scandal on January 21st, and poll numbers begin to fall.

      January 22nd, Vice President Rubio intentionally fails as project manager on “Vice President Apprentice” and is fired by Trump, poll numbers continue to fall.

      January 23rd, Trump announces that Ivanka Trump, his daughter, will be the new Vice President, because, “She’s a winner unlike all these Washington losers”. Poll numbers rebound with posting of pictures of our new Vice President in a slinky dress.

      January 24th, ground war breaks out with India over naming rights regarding the Trump Taj Mahal versus the actual Taj Mahal. Poll numbers fall, but defense lobbyists are thrilled.

      January 25th, Vice President Ivanka is sent to work with Indian representatives on a cease fire, but meeting is cancelled when a confused Ivanka goes to a newly opened sandwich shop on a Cherokee reservation rather than to New Dehli (think about it just a bit and it will be hilarious). Poll numbers fall even more.

      January 26th, Trump declares the country bankrupt and moves on to his next project to become President of a different country because he can’t work with all the losers here.

      So, seven days after January 26th, Let’s go with February 3rd, 2017.

  9. flypusher says:

    Trump tweets!! With ratings for degree of Trumpy goodness! Enjoy!

    http://www.vox.com/2015/11/7/9687698/donald-trump-tweets-reviewed

    (Yeah, I’ll be watching him on SNL. )

  10. Griffin says:

    It’s so embarrasing the date I guessed past by month ago. Now I kind of want Trump to get elected so 90% of us can be completely wrong like me. Also to see his inauguration speech before I move to Canada forever, that too.

  11. Pseudoperson Randomian says:

    Hey Chris, could you put up the politics of crazy on Google play books?

    I have some credit on there that I would spend on this…

    • goplifer says:

      I’ve been lazy about it. I’ll get it done. Might have it completed by the end of the month. Also have a hardcopy option in the works.

      • 1mime says:

        Hey Lifer – Going to hard copy, eh? Better watch it, you might just end up being a capitalist (-:

        Good for you. It’s an interesting read and definitely timely.

      • EJ says:

        If there’s a hard copy for sale in Europe, you can put me down for several copies as gifts for friends.

      • Pseudoperson Randomian says:

        Looking forward to it.

        What’s the best way to get notified when that happens?

      • RightonRush says:

        I’d like to have a hard copy.

      • 1mime says:

        Me, too, RR. I have some conservative “friends” I want to share Lifer’s book with for Christmas (-:

    • goplifer says:

      Once I get it done I’ll post something here.

      • 1mime says:

        Lifer, I was reading some of your older posts and came upon the one, “Rules for Rationals”. It is a textbook campaign plan, especially for the “small-scale” candidate. I wonder though, as much sense as it makes, do you think this plan is still viable in today’s political climate?

  12. momrois says:

    Will someone please fill me in on what Trump’s “policies” are?

  13. vikinghou says:

    I really think Trump began his campaign as a lark and didn’t expect to be so successful. I’m still not convinced he really wants to become President, but he will ride the campaign rollercoaster as long as he continues to receive positive feedback. At this point the question concerns if or when his campaign pendulum will swing the other direction. I think he wants to give a big speech at the GOP Convention and hang in there until then.

    • flypusher says:

      There are some amusing conspiracy theories that he’s trolling the GOP as a favor to his buddies Bill and Hillary. He’s certainly exposing the ugly within the base, no matter what his motivations are.

  14. BigWilly says:

    I’m still trying to figure out exactly what’s “wrong” with Donald Trump. He offends the liberal jerk offs, but that’s almost a plus given my experience with them. They are definitely not a we in my experience. There is that existential disconnect, which is actually a signal of positive, good, hygiene.

    I can acknowledge the flaws in my party, but you go so far beyond that that you lose all credibility as a Republican.

    I could almost smell the puke when I read your last one. Why don’t you just turn coat and get out of the party if you have no intention of doing any good.

    • vikinghou says:

      I’m one of those liberal jerk-offs. Some of Trump’s views are offensive to me, but I have a hell of a lot of fun listening to him. He’s could be big hit as a conservative version of Bill Maher.

      • 1mime says:

        Count me in as a liberal, too, tho not sure I accept the “jerk off” expansion, whatever you mean by that BW. Trump has served a valuable purpose in this election. He has been both a part of the BS and helped to ridicule it. There is entirely too much posturing within the Republican Party and Trump is swatting it away with casual rhetoric. That is a good thing.

        After the Southern Democratic Debate last night, there was a pretty good discussion of Trump’s seriousness regarding his run for President. Historically, he has been dancing around the fire for several election cycles, and the pundits who were talking political shop seemed to think Trump really is serious this time about being President, and that the GOP better start getting comfortable with this fact.

        I have stated this several times and so guess one more time won’t hurt. If I were a Republican (I am not) and the choice came down to: Trump or Cruz, or Trump or Rubio, Trump would get my vote. If the nomination comes down to a Rubio/Cruz, I would have to go with Rubio, who is less prepared than even Obama was but more rational than Cruz. Amazingly, America survived President Barack Obama, I assume we would survive a President Trump or Rubio. I do not feel that way about Cruz.

    • flypusher says:

      “I’m still trying to figure out exactly what’s “wrong” with Donald Trump. ”

      I’ll take “People who don’t think through all the implications of their statements” for $1000, Alex.

      Consider his immigration rhetoric. Lots of raw, dripping red meat to the base, but what can realistically be put into action? Do you really think a big wall on the Southern border is the answer? Is trashing the 14th Amendment wise?

      • BigWilly says:

        Most of the people here in the country illegally are working, that’s a plus. They cut my grass so I don’t have to. They wash my car, serve my food, and stock my groceries. I suppose their cause has merit. I’d be concerned about assimilation, but y’all are so busy tearing down my culture that it may be unnecessary.

        We won’t have a wall on the Southern border, in the traditional sense. It will be an energy barrier. If you don’t think that’s possible, think of your invisible pet fence. Trashing the 14th Amendment would not be wise.

        Trump can be a bit of the blowhard, but he’s DONALD J. TRUMP and you betta believe it. I may have some education and all that, but I’m blue collar when it comes down to it, so there is a certain appeal to the TRUMP campaign, however I don’t think he fits the GOP template of a politician.

        If his campaign cannot be brought down I’m looking at the lessor of two evils. (I like the implications of lessor, by the way, so I’m leaving it in)

        Strange days, strange days indeed.

        Strange days have found us
        Strange days have tracked us down
        They’re going to destroy our casual joys

        The Doors –

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        BigWilly – I like your idea of an invisible pet fence. I’m trying to imagine getting the shock collar on every Mexican though.

      • BigWilly says:

        Shock collar=The collar of obedience in The Gamesters of Triskelion. It’ll be a chip the size of a grain of rice implanted in the webbing between the thumb and index finger. Between that and a truly global internet and… … …not good.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        BW – you do realize that the people who hold the actual power in your party and set the agenda actually have no desire to get rid of the illegals right? They want them here. The labour is cheap and easily exploitable.

        If that wasn’t the case, they would have passed some form of comprehensive immigration reform.

        True, it seems the power brokers may be losing control after decades of throwing red meat with no intention of following up.

        If you have an issue with illegal immigrants, there’s no one to look further then the GOP.

    • vikinghou says:

      fly,

      Concerning the wall, Trump had the perfect answer. “Walls work. Just ask Israel!” You have to admit it’s funny.

      • flypusher says:

        Funny and scary at the same time. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be anywhere near Israel right now.

      • 1mime says:

        Walls don’t work, just ask the Berliners.

      • EJ says:

        Walls work fine in Berlin. Thanks to them we have some of the best public graffiti murals, and a lot of cheap land centrally-located which hasn’t been properly developed.

        They don’t work for keeping people out, but then that was never the point, was it?

    • EJ says:

      What’s wrong with Donald Trump:

      A) He holds opinions which are at odds with observable reality.

      B) He proposes actions which are not widely supported by experts in the relevant fields.

      C) He is not electable.

      Pick your poison.

    • Griffin says:

      You’re trying too hard to troll everybody. You need to relax, let the bitterness flow naturally.

    • GG says:

      “I’m still trying to figure out exactly what’s “wrong” with Donald Trump.”—Being an infantile bully is not enough? The guy cannot handle being argued with without resorting to personal insults.

      I do agree with the person above who said he may be trolling the GOP though.

    • Creigh says:

      I’m pulling for Trump on the Republican side. Why? Better a buffoon than an ideologue. A buffoon might realize he or she is in over their head and look for some help, but a true believer never doubts themselves and will double down every time.

      • 1mime says:

        Creigh, that is the best description I have seen on the subject, and is exactly the difference between a Trump and a Cruz.

    • n1cholas says:

      Spoken like a true reactionary.

      You are definitely a real Republican.

      Hate, vitriol, tribalism, and that’s it.

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      I don’t particularly like defining myself as any given brand (liberal, conservative, progressive, independent, etc.), though I’d argue that Trump’s unique brand as a politician goes far beyond just offending “liberal jerk offs”.

      When, in his official announcement for running for POTUS, he calls Mexicans “rapists and murderers”, that’s generally offensive to the broad swath of Hispanics and other immigrants in this country. If we swapped things around and had someone go around calling American immigrants “rapists and murderers”, safe to say that the overwhelming majority of the American people would feel the same way.

      In addition to that, there’s The Donald’s utter lack of policy and/or credible jobs plans. Sure, the guy released a tax plan a while ago, but which for the most part just continues supply-side economics and provides a huge tax cut for the rich, contrary to what Mr. Trump otherwise says; which, hey, if that’s your particular brand of vodka – Trump Vodka, that is, which is actually a thing – more power to you. I don’t agree and I don’t think the majority of the American people do either.

      Then there’s foreign policy. Trump has no foreign policy. His essential view is that he’s a successful businessman, he’s tough and he’ll figure it out when he’s president. Personally, I have a hard time believing that anyone that would have trouble dealing with CNBC moderators is going to come across as all that intimidating to the Chinese and Russians, but that’s just me.

      There’s more, but I think I’ve gotten my point across. I don’t necessarily label Trump as “wrong” so much as I do utterly unsuited to the job of president.

      • 1mime says:

        Trump, about all one can say of him if they are honest is: he is the lesser of the evils.

        Your comment: (Trump) …anyone would have trouble dealing with CNBC moderators is going to come across as all that intimidating to the Chinese and Russians.

        Trump would “just fire” the heads of states who didn’t agree to his demands. Ha!

      • BigWilly says:

        What goes through your mind when you see 100 “Mexicans” lounging about in the midday heat around the Home Depot? You do know how that works, right?

        Ordinarily, in the US, these men would be arrested for loitering or vagrancy. However, because we’ve neglected to enforce our laws the numbers of illegal aliens in the country has become so large that we no longer have control.

        Rapists, hit and run drivers, bail jumpers, identity fraudsters, lawbreakers. Wherein am I incorrect? At the least an illegal alien is not here legally, not that you’d care about that because your ulterior motive is to build your client base in the dem party.

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        First of all, and with all due respect, you can take every single one of your accusations towards immigrants and apply them to your fellow Americans.

        To be clear, I’m not disparaging against the American worker, but it implies a double standard when people accuse immigrants of this or that and speak as if these issues are selective to those specific groups of people alone. These aren’t immigration problems, they’re human problems and we need to work to create a more inclusive society that frowns on such things.

        Secondly, you’re half right when you say that we’ve lost control over immigration in this country, and I say that in the sense that immigrants, Hispanics specifically, are the rising electorate in this country. Lifer knows this very well. The share of the white vote in this country is declining at a rapid pace, a few percentage points every couple of years and, IMO, due to accelerate as the most elderly whites die out; which, if the most recent reports are to be believed, is happening even faster than we previously thought.

        Now, as a white male who also happens to be a so-called “Millenial”, I’m just fine with that. I don’t think whites should have any societal advantages over anyone else. We’re neither better nor worse, certainly not because of something as meaningless as skin color.

        I believe that one’s standing in society should be based purely on the merits of their own strength, how hard they work and their perseverance through despair and all the inevitable hardships of their lives. Whether one is Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, or whatever else doesn’t matter.

        Finally, and just for the record, President Obama was lambasted pretty well by immigrant groups for deporting record numbers of them at the beginning of his presidency, more than were done even under George W. Bush, so that says all that needs to be said about our immigrant laws not being enforced. Those are just talking points without any real substance to them.

      • 1mime says:

        Clap, clap.

      • BigWilly says:

        Illegal immigrants are here in this country against the law. At some point in time they should be held accountable for their crime. The trashing of the 14th Amendment is not on the conservatives, they’re not abusing the law, the illegals are. The liberals then attempt to spin the perps into the victims. Boo hoo hoo.

        Patent trickery and falsehoods. There should be no relativity between those of us who are legitimate US citizens and those who are not. They do not have the same rights. They are usurpers of our rights.

        I think your argument start from the wrong direction and ends up in a number of different unfortunate outcomes, not the least of which is the collapse of the US gov’t.

        By the way, the wall worked out pretty good for China didn’t it.

      • Historically the Republicans have always encouraged illegal immigrants
        The Dems have encouraged LEGAL immigrants

        Is obvious why
        Legal immigrants tend to vote Dem
        Illegal immigrants can’t vote, work for less money and tend to depress wages – all of which helps the rich business owners who own the Republican party

        This is easy to see if you look at funding for the Border Patrol
        Historically one of the first things a new Republican president does is cut the funds for the Border Patrol and one of the first things a Dem president does is increase them

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        With all respect, you fail to address the issue of of, exactly, how to deport – which is what I’m assuming you mean when you say they should be “held accountable” – the 10+ MILLION people who are here illegally.

        I’ll save you the energy of a response by answering that for you. There is no credible way to do all of that. Not only would it cost an exorbitant amount of money, but the idea of taking millions of working people, legally or illegally, out of the US economy would be absolutely devastating. Like it or not, illegal immigrants contribute an enormous amount of work and resources (for example, they pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, though they don’t collect on the benefits, obviously) and we need to find a solution to bring them out and into the open, not cutting off our proverbial nose to spite our face.

        So, let’s take all that in for a moment, shall we? You say they’re “usurpers of our rights”, but these are people who help to contribute to the continued solvency of two of our most treasured social programs, Social Security and Medicare. Bearing that in mind, is it not correct to say that they’re not only not stealing from us, they’re actually helping people like you and me at their own personal expense (since, again, they cannot legally obtain those benefits)?

        Why yes, I do believe that that is correct. If you disagree though, then do explain, specifically, how it is that these people contributing to SS and Medicare only serves their own personal interests. I’ll be very interested to hear your response.

        Yours is the kind of opinion, with all respect, that just makes me want to tear my hair out. You cherry pick political yarn to suit your own perspective without giving these people, who aren’t all that much different from you or me, any of the benefits of their own struggles or what they try to do to contribute to this country.

        As Lifer has said repeatedly, Republicans should be the party that are the natural allies of immigrants. People like you make that task near impossibly difficult.

      • BigWilly says:

        I’m leaving “held accountable” open to include other possibilities.

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        “Other possibilities” such as… what, exactly?

        Generally speaking, there are three sides people tend to take when discussing illegal immigration:

        1.) You support deporting them, which is both financially and economically disastrous.

        2.) You support trying to bring them out into the open, which would mean you should, be all rights, support something like the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate and died in the Republican House.

        3.) You support the status quo, leaving the millions of illegal immigrants in limbo while, politically, using them to serve your own ends. I would note that this can apply equally to both Democrats and Republicans.

        Substantively, there is no other option. There is no way to “secure the border” enough that you are going to stop illegal immigrants from coming into this country completely. That just ain’t gonna happen, and anyone who suggests otherwise is either lying or just plain ignorant.

        That being said, don’t get me wrong. I personally don’t see how there are any other options, but if you’ve an honest, substantive one that I’ve somehow overlooked, I’m all ears.

      • BigWilly says:

        If the leadership in the GOP pays any attention to this blog I’ve been suggesting something along the lines of option #2 for quite some time, though occasionally I like to jerk your chain and lead you to believe I’m “right wing.”

        If you’ve really paid attention over the long haul there was a period when I 1) resigned from the GOP as a precinct chair over the rhetoric regarding illegal immigration 2) entertained the liberal side of thinking 3) came full circle back to conservative. I want you to know that I am completely versed in the rhetoric of both parties and can use it if need be, but that I do not buy into any of it wholesale.

        I like to use nuance, which is why I didn’t mention mass deportation as the sole method for holding the illegals/the guy next door accountable.

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        Alright then, so if I understand you correctly, it’s safe to say that, at least broadly, we’re on the same page. Good to hear it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 469 other followers

%d bloggers like this: