This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Hey if PGA events are now public property then I'm sure we all get to play on Trump courses now too free of charge, right?
The PGA is going to shut down after our dear leader makes 15 holes-in-one in a round.
Biggest in my adult voting lifetime. I'm 43. Thanks to the rampant partisan BS going on now (on both sides), we'll likely never see true "landslide" wins like Reagan / Nixon / LBJ achieved, but Hillary is easily going to have a bigger electoral margin than Bill Clinton or Obama ever did -- and none of those four elections were remotely close contests. Part of that is due to the fact that the rapidly changing ethnic demographics of the country are making it harder for the Republican party to compete nationally every cycle, of course, but a bigger part of it is that Trump himself is a braying fool who has based his campaign around attacking the groups that the party most needs to attract in order to be competitive moving forward.
Amazing. Straight up Con Artist.
Thirty years of kneeling at the altar of the free market, and now they cheer a guy who wants the federal government to control everything from the PGA Tour to what the Starbucks barista says to you when they hand you your coffee during the holiday season.
He's not getting anywhere near the Oval Office. But at least the dopes that want him to are going to end up with some fantastic Chinese hats. The best.
Hard to disagree with most of what you wrote. I agree that we won't be seeing anymore Reaganesque landslide wins. Certainly never again by the Republicans. Perhaps by the Democrats a few decades from now as America's demographics continue to shift, but by then I'd expect that we'd see some splintering within the Democrat Party among competing groups who feel like the Democrats no longer best represent their interests.
I don't know -- I really think that a young, charasmatic Republican who ditched the social conservatism and focused on fiscal policy would win fairly easily against Hillary this year -- although maybe I'm just projecting myself onto the general public too much. And IMO the difference is that Romney was running against a remarkably talented politician who most of the country sees as a pretty good President. Hillary just sucks and isn't even remotely comparable -- I think that a Romney-type would have beaten her personally.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-japan/index.html
Fiscal policy doesn't motivate the average voter. Too cerebral. Emotional arguments that play to identity work far better than policy arguments. That's why the Democrats use identity politics so successfully, and Trump has flourished by dumping the standard GOP talk of social values and fiscal conservatism and instead appealing to the working class, predominantly the white working class, in a populist, nationalist manner.
And the GOP are masters of appealing to these people. Obama nailed Trump's campaign nearly 100%.
That is pretty hugely likely to be reversed this year at least to some degree due to the guy who landed on the top of the ticket. IMO taking back the Senate is a near certainty, with the House as a more remote possibility.
The GOP has had record levels of success controlling state legislatures, Governorships, and Congressional seats in states and districts where there is a white majority. Part of that is the GOP playing to the identity of that base (which is wise politics), and part of it is the white working class increasingly fleeing the Democrats because they see that party as increasingly and explicitly focusing on other identity blocs.
Not necessarily. Most of Trump's money is likely in real estate, not "cash, securities, and bonds." All Cubans is saying is he has more of one kind of wealth than Trump does. Just a n attack piece with half-truths.
What's with the 'identity appeals' code language? Democrats are pushing for equality for everyone - why does this threaten working class whites?
And everywhere they gain power people hate them intensely. We are nearly to torches and pitchforks in Kansas. My priorities are getting my son through college and retiring decently and Brownback has basically wiped his ### with my hopes and dreams.
It's a combination of trhe Democratic solution for equality plus open borders that working class whites find threatening to their jobs, IMO
Funny, I'm in the same position more or less. The financial crisis hit me hard - took years to recover to the point where I can retire comfortably, but I see the culprits in both parties.
There were Republican Presidents for 20 out of 28 years between 1980 and 2008 but it's the Democrats fault that nothing was done about illegal immigration.
There's no code. Identity politics is a well-established theory of politics, thoroughly written on part of politics, and much practiced in politics. Denying that it exists is weird.
Typical loan to value on commercial property is 70% so the question is how much equity does he actually have in the buildings he 'owns'?
Also the owner of the propoerties is likely not Trump himself, but a closely held corporation or limited liability company in which he holds some stake. I'm not an accountant, so I don't know if that stake would show up in the federal election reports on his holdings.
If you're taking paper wealth and assets real and intangible yeah I agree but if he does that he better show his debt and how much of those assets are leveraged as well. It sounds like the guy is addicted to borrowing and to the rush that goes with putting his name on a brand.
He can claim it if he's a part owner. People do this with borrowing all the time. Shell companies with estimated value or companies where title is co-owned but either noting is possessed or it's just a share of the total value while the whole value is claim. Boom this is what you're worth, these are your assets you can leverage and here comes the cash.
All I was saying is that Cubans was being disingenuous in his comparison by comparing only certain kinds of assets, not total net worth.
Well Donald for one, he talks about his wealth all the time and he's sued people for saying he's not as rich as he says.
And just using the same exact playbook in the Super Bowl as you did in the NFC Championship game.
He has the same philosophy when it comes to policy, where he's also visceral and a mile-wide and an inch deep. By his own admission, he just needs to consult himself.
I'm a vanilla white middle aged dude.
