Fear of a Drumph Planet

[Rotobeast]

Not going to quote it, as I'm on my mobile.

World leaders fear Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-terrifies-world-leaders-222233

[NATI BENGALS]

He would probably start his own reality tv channel and hosts a show once a month about who needs bombed. And what world leaders he will fire. Fire.. get it?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

By Politico putting out this little article, they just gave Donald Trump more votes in the General Election, which is stupid of them to do.

There are more people in this country, I believe, that thinks the United States is much weaker now than we were before Obama took office than there are who think we are stronger. This article, whether or not it was the plan of Politico, just told a bunch of people that other countries fear Donald Trump with sources. This may bring some of those Republican voters out on election day for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

I don't want Trump as my president, nor do I want Clinton. Donald Trump will be in for a rude awakening once he's president when he expects a leader of a different country just to lay down for him. In the business world, when Trump says "You're Fired", that person goes away. That will not work with Vladimir Putin or whacky Kim Jung Un as they look at him and say "F You".

We deserve what we get though.

[Rotobeast]

(04-22-2016, 01:31 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: By Politico putting out this little article, they just gave Donald Trump more votes in the General Election, which is stupid of them to do.

There are more people in this country, I believe, that thinks the United States is much weaker now than we were before Obama took office than there are who think we are stronger. This article, whether or not it was the plan of Politico, just told a bunch of people that other countries fear Donald Trump with sources. This may bring some of those Republican voters out on election day for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

I don't want Trump as my president, nor do I want Clinton. Donald Trump will be in for a rude awakening once he's president when he expects a leader of a different country just to lay down for him. In the business world, when Trump says "You're Fired", that person goes away. That will not work with Vladimir Putin or whacky Kim Jung Un as they look at him and say "F You".

We deserve what we get though.

I don't think Trump would hardball right away.
He would negotiate incentives, then maybe take firm stances.

I do agree the article helps him, more than anything.

[*michaelsean*]

Quote:Now, world leaders cop to being afraid of a Trump presidency, and they’re making preparations: scrambling to get deals done with the Obama administration while they still have the chance.

See. He's helping already.

If they really do follow American politics as closely as the article says, then they should be able to look at the numbers and realize he doesn't have a chance.

I just can't believe we've come down to Trump and Hillary.

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-22-2016, 09:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: See.  He's helping already.

If they really do follow American politics as closely as the article says, then they should be able to look at the numbers and realize he doesn't have a chance.  

I just can't believe we've come down to Trump and Hillary.

It's awesome in a very macabre way.  

[Rotobeast]

(04-22-2016, 09:41 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: It's awesome in a very macabre way.  

Especially since it's opened a lot of people's eyes.
It's a rigged system and people deserve a new one where their vote is actually worth something.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-22-2016, 10:01 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Especially since it's opened a lot of people's eyes.
It's a rigged system and people deserve a new one where their vote is actually worth something.

Who rigged it to put Trump on top?  The Republican Party is actively trying to defeat him.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-22-2016, 10:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Who rigged it to put Trump on top?  The Republican Party is actively trying to defeat him.

Exactly and if Trump isn't the nominee they'll simply be reinforcing his point.  Until he's the actual nominee the concept of the party inflicting it's will on the people is a valid concern.

[GMDino]

(04-22-2016, 10:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Who rigged it to put Trump on top?  The Republican Party is actively trying to defeat him.

Really great people.  Some of the best people ever I've been told.  

[*michaelsean*]

(04-22-2016, 11:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly and if Trump isn't the nominee they'll simply be reinforcing his point.  Until he's the actual nominee the concept of the party inflicting it's will on the people is a valid concern.

Nobody asked you. :boo:

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-22-2016, 12:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Nobody asked you. :boo:

Touche'

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(04-22-2016, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Touche'

Tooshy

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2016, 11:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly and if Trump isn't the nominee they'll simply be reinforcing his point.  Until he's the actual nominee the concept of the party inflicting it's will on the people is a valid concern.

Membership in the Republican Party is voluntary.  If people don't agree with the Republican nominee they can vote for someone else.

The problem is that the influence of money has made it impossible for a viable third party to ever exist.

So if you are mad focus that anger on changing the system so that money is not an influence on elections. Blaming the parties and their arcane rules is useless.  It is like yelling at the cashier for the high price of groceries. 

[*PhilHos*]

(04-22-2016, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Membership in the Republican Party is voluntary.  If people don't agree with the Republican nominee they can vote for someone else.

The problem is that the influence of money has made it impossible for a viable third party to ever exist.

So if you are mad focus that anger on changing the system so that money is not an influence on elections. Blaming the parties and their arcane rules is useless.  It is like yelling at the cashier for the high price of groceries. 

I do like how this election cycle BOTH parties are having candidate controversies. You have the Republicans and their desire for anyone but Trump and you have the Democrats and their desire for Hillary to be the ONLY candidate.

It's fun to scroll through my Facebook feed and see anti-Hillary pro-Bernie articles and anti-Trump articles and pro-Trump articles and so on. Although, now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen any pro-Hillary articles. I probably have, just don't remember them.

Anyway, liberals suck and are afraid of Trump's hair. 

[Rotobeast]

(04-22-2016, 10:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Who rigged it to put Trump on top?  The Republican Party is actively trying to defeat him.

Hillary and George Soros?

[JustWinBaby]

(04-22-2016, 09:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: See.  He's helping already.

If they really do follow American politics as closely as the article says, then they should be able to look at the numbers and realize he doesn't have a chance.  

I just can't believe we've come down to Trump and Hillary.

Most of the bad actors can wait out multiple administrations - they have time to play the long game.

They may come to love Trump.  When you sell yourself as a deal maker, then you kind of have to make deals.  He could easily end-up being a bigger pushover than he claims Obama to be.  Regardless of the merits of a deal, Trump will say how great and fantastic his deal is - can't do that unless you actually make deals.

Trump doesn't steamroll or trample the other party every time.  Business has multiple parties to a deal just like foreign policy, sometimes with disparate leverage (just like in politics).  Trump never has been and never will be a winner-take-all dealmaker, neither in business nor politics.  That's not how deals work.  

Trump would definitely find compromises, whether he's willing to lower the bar into "bad deal" territory to claim an accomplishment is a different question.  Not making bad deals is a good thing, but juvenile criticism and blame of the other side of the deal is never acceptable or productive - and Trump rarely does that in business, except rarely would he have a camera and mic in his face asking about a failed business deal.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-22-2016, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that the influence of money has made it impossible for a viable third party to ever exist.

Money only works because many voters are lazy and/or disinterested to the point of ignorance.  If voters were only influenced by ample information they can find online, then spending boatloads of money on ads would be ineffective.

Probably the bigger issue is the mainstream media is essentially an extension of the Repub and Dem party.  The media is required to give equal time, but seems like they have plenty of ways around that.  So the lack of national coverage means a 3rd Party candidate would have to spend even more to be noticed and heard - Ross Perot bought primetime spots, but I'm not sure he would have been as effective today in the new media environment where less people are tuned in and everyone has more options to tune out.

80% of the country will happily (and blindly) pull the lever for a Repub or Dem.  You need 5% (I think) to get on stage for the Presidential debates in the general....so really the math is set-up to work against an independent.  To say nothing of the ground game and infrastructure needed to turn-out the vote for you in each state (which, again, speaks more to the disinterest and general malaise of the electorate).

[Rotobeast]

(04-22-2016, 02:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Money only works because many voters are lazy and/or disinterested to the point of ignorance.  If voters were only influenced by ample information they can find online, then spending boatloads of money on ads would be ineffective.

Probably the bigger issue is the mainstream media is essentially an extension of the Repub and Dem party.  The media is required to give equal time, but seems like they have plenty of ways around that.  So the lack of national coverage means a 3rd Party candidate would have to spend even more to be noticed and heard - Ross Perot bought primetime spots, but I'm not sure he would have been as effective today in the new media environment where less people are tuned in and everyone has more options to tune out.

80% of the country will happily (and blindly) pull the lever for a Repub or Dem.  You need 5% (I think) to get on stage for the Presidential debates in the general....so really the math is set-up to work against an independent.  To say nothing of the ground game and infrastructure needed to turn-out the vote for you in each state (which, again, speaks more to the disinterest and general malaise of the electorate).

Good post !