Trump??!!?

[Don Giovanni]

I just read an article about Trump wanting to create a database of Muslims if (god forbid) he's elected. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-u-s-presidential-race-muslim-database-1.3327709
This man is absolutely terrifying; he's a bigot, a boor, a misogynist hateful, hate filled man, and yet he is still leading the Republican pack? That to me is inconceivable. I understand that "regular people" are often sick of the typical political crop - I know how I felt during our recent election - but being sick of platitudes and self serving pap doesn't mean you should lean 180 degrees the other way and embrace divisiveness, hate and fear does it? Is it enough to rant about "making country x great again" or ensuring that people from y, or whose skin colour is anything but pasty white are marginalized, or kept in their place,or held in suspicion without any facts to back up claims? Is it enough to throw out the most outlandish ideas but nothing to detail how those ideas will be carried out, or to have those ideas be exposed for their ludicrousness (is that even a word? I'm still a bit stunned after reading that article) Does the Donald really believe that a wall will be built along the southern US border and that the Mexicans will gladly pay for it? To an outsider that just seems like a terrible, bad political joke. Frankly, if he should -god forbid- win the election, I think I'd lay the first brick along the 49th parallel. This guy scares me.

[Chancellor]

He's never going to win the nomination. First, he is WAY TOO DIVISIVE. Second, he is not what most modern day Republicrats like. He's leading the polls because the media continues to cover him and that is who people think of when asked.

[Don Giovanni]

He's never going to win the nomination. First, he is WAY TOO DIVISIVE. Second, he is not what most modern day Republicrats like. He's leading the polls because the media continues to cover him and that is who people think of when asked.

I sure hope you're right. This guy is a whack job.

In your opinion, who will win the nomination?

[Chancellor]

Um? None of the above?

I don't honestly know.

[Don Giovanni]

Your politics, as a rule, are much more interesting to follow than ours. This time around though, it's almost surreal.
Here's my ignorance talking though..... are there only ever two choices (i.e. Rep and Dem) on a ballot? do you have minor parties, like our Green party, for instance, that we just don't hear about up here?

[emmalou]

Our election laws are weird and vary by state. There are ballot access laws that vary by state, determining what other parties can be on a ballot besides Republican and Democrat. They have to meet certain requirements by each state such as registering enough voters in that party, winning a certain percentage of the vote in primary, etc.

Ross Perot ran as an independent against a Dem and Repub. I don't think we've had a 3rd party candidate since then?

I find the primaries much more fun. Loads of wacky people like Roseanne Barr.

As for the Repub nominee, I think it will be Jeb Bush.

[Tabby]

Don Giovanni, Trump is the least of the Republican's concerns. Believe it or not, he isn't even close to the whackiest of them. If you want jaw-dropping whacky, google Ben Carson or our fellow Canadian, Ted Cruz. Those are only the ones I know - I'm sure some of the others have these guys beat.

I'm with Emmalou - I think Jeb Bush will get the nomination. He's the only chance the Republicans have to win president. There's no way the general American population will vote for these others.

[WheresMyWhite]

are there only ever two choices (i.e. Rep and Dem) on a ballot? do you have minor parties, like our Green party, for instance, that we just don't hear about up here?

To answer your question very quickly, no. Rep & Dem get the attention from the media but minor parties will be on the ballot at the federal, state and local levels (different candidates). As noted, how to actually get on a ballot varies by state. Sometimes for POTUS there can be 10+ candidates to choose from.

Many will vote Rep or Dem because they feel the minor parties have no chance of being elected. That drives me nuts as maybe if more voted their actual choice and not the least icky candidate from Rep or Dem... maybe we'd actually get some passably decent politicians.

[Tabby]

WMW - regarding the minor parties, is there every anybody running in enough states to even have a shot of winning POTUS? Also, is there any reason no other party has ever emerged or risen up to take on the reps and dems? I'm just curious as to whether it is your political structure or the actual power of the parties themselves.

[WheresMyWhite]

IN MY OPINION ONLY

Some of the larger minority parties like Libertarian and a few variations of "green" can get their candidate for POTUS on the ballot in probably most/all of the states. Having said that, they get votes but not enough to de-throne Rep & Dem POTUS candidates. At the more local elections while it isn't common you will see non-Dem/Rep candidates will win local (state, county, city/town/etc) elections.

IN MY OPINION, at the POTUS level, many vote the party ticket and many don't like to go against the grain when it comes to President. I have talked to more than one individual from both Rep and Dem parties and they have said they are voting a Rep or Dem as the lesser of the two evils (between Rep and Dem). So for POTUS, they vote for a candidate who might win but isn't their first, or even second, choice rather than vote for a candidate that actually stands for what their personal beliefs are.

The 2 majority parties have a lot of power (again IMO ). Their support or not of a candidate has much to do with that candidate getting the focus and attention during the primaries. It is hard to be a successful Rep or Dem candidate without party backing.

There are things I dislike about the Rep party and things I dislike about the Dem party (talking policy and not candidate). So, I don't vote for either. Maybe, just maybe some day a truly viable candidate will loom on the horizon who isn't Rep or Dem

And an interesting thought (that I'd have to really think through) is currently POTUS not elected by individual votes but by the electoral college. How the electoral collect votes is in part defined by each state (as I recall) and each state has a number of electoral collage votes. As the general ballots are cast and counted, that defines how the electoral college for the state votes (been too long since I actually studied how it works). It has happened in the past where ballots cast result in a different outcome than how the electoral college voted. Kind of a weird system but originated during the early years of this country where it might take weeks to get information on an election outcome. Many would like to see the electoral college go away.

[Tabby]

Thanks. That is very helpful. I know about the electoral college system but I don't pretend to understand it. We get similar results where the winner doesn't have the majority of votes but the majority of seats. Ours gets even more complicated in that we have 4 major parties and one fringe one that actually gets seats (Greens). There are at least a few dozen more that run every year but don't get anywhere. Even with that, it is difficult for a new or fringe party to make any headway. Going into our last election there was talk about electoral reform. Supposedly Trudeau supports looking into this but there's been so much else going on lately he hasn't said a word about it. I would like to see some kind of proportional representation so that no party receiving a minority of votes can have a majority. As complicated as our system is, I think yours is worse since it is virtually "owned" by 2 parties. At least our fringe parties get into the fray, if only a little bit.

I'm curious - and this is only hypothetical but it might shed light on how your system works - what would happen if a non rep/dem candidate won POTUS?

[WheresMyWhite]

I'm curious - and this is only hypothetical but it might shed light on how your system works - what would happen if a non rep/dem candidate won POTUS?

Again, IN MY OPINION only

I think it would greatly depend on the individual who won. They have to work with Congress and the likelihood of POTUS's party getting a majority in either House or Senate would be possible but fairly small. It would be a study in compromise for sure. Congress can override a POTUS veto but it takes many votes to do that (forget the %). If they are good, they could work both sides of the aisle and maybe make some real progress (at least I'd like to think so anyway )

IMO, in many cases, POTUS is more a figurehead for their party along with the composite information and recommendations by their Cabinet. Yes, the individual does have the final say with respect to party/Cabinet but still a composite. The party wouldn't back a person that would deviate too far from party line. Cabinet is chased by the President so people, in general, that they trust and respect (or I'd like to at least think so anyway ).

I was thinking about this thread last night. Some might think me silly for voting non-Dem/Rep and I'm ok with that. Many people in this world don't get to vote or if they do, the selection may be limited. I get to choose who I want to vote for and I don't really even have to vote if I don't want to . I do because I can. I know many who don't vote because they don't like the candidates or because their vote doesn't count. In my book, if you don't at least vote, I don't care for who, you also don't get to complain about what government is doing

Good discussion

PS. when I vote I tend to focus more on local candidates (city/town/county/state) than POTUS. I also tend to focus on local issues (state constitutional amendments or new prosposed laws, etc). The local "stuff" usually tends to actually affect me more than federal. At least IN MY OPINION

[Tabby]

There is a lot of discussion in Canada as well about "throwing away your vote" on a party that has no chance of winning. I disagree with this. Even the craziest of fringe parties have something to offer and some even have a few great ideas. The way our electoral system is set up, it is very difficult for small parties to even get their foot in the door. Also, people tend to get polarized and vote AGAINST a less desirable party rather than voting FOR the party they truly want to support. Our latest election was a good example of that - a large number of people wanted the former government out. There were even ABC campaigns (anything but conservative) and crowd-funded strategic voting organizations that would help you pick the candidate in your riding most likely to defeat the conservatives. The polls showed a 3 way tie right up to the last minute yet the Liberals got a majority - mostly because at the actual moment of the election, that party seemed most likely to win so even the NDP and Green (and to a lesser extent, Bloc) supporters voted them. This all despite the Green party leader being the most popular and the left wing virtually split between Libs and NDP. The Greens suffered the most out of this which is too bad because they really do have the best leader and their platform was actually pretty good. I would like to see some kind of electoral reform where people don't feel like their vote is thrown away. Our current system is a little different than yours, but not much. The country is divided into "ridings" or sections based on population and area. You vote on individual candidates in your riding to be your representative. That representative gets a "seat" in parliament. The party with the most seats wins and that party's leader is automatically the prime minister. So to vote against anyone, you need to know who the most likely LOCAL candidate can beat that party because it doesn't go by vote percentage. The only riding that the Green party had a chance in was the leader's and that's the only seat they got. If I vote green in my riding, I am risking that the candidate most likely to beat the conservatives might not get enough votes.

So this is how we end up with screwed up government.

And I agree local stuff affects us more directly but still voter turnout for city council and mayor is abysmal around here. People just don't have a clue.

[KathyK]

Ross Perot ran as an independent against a Dem and Repub. I don't think we've had a 3rd party candidate since then?

Ralph Nader ran in 2000 as the Green Party candidate. That is how, in my opinion George Bush won. Nader took many votes that otherwise would have probably gone to Al Gore because, as WMW pointed out, so many vote the party line for POTUS. I believe that Nader was an attractive choice to far more Democratic voters than Republican.

[Figgy]

but Trump. What a trainwreck. He wins, i'd hate to think what your economy and internal law and order situation looks like. Train wreck will probably be the correct description.

[WheresMyWhite]

Trump is, IN MY OPINION, a train wreck. I don't think he can win. Having said that, if he were to win, we better hope there are enough relatively sane people in Congress (which I also sometimes question the sanity in Congress) to rein him in. Other than by executive order, the President can't just do what he wants... (as much as they might like).

I am not sure what the rules/laws are regarding when executive orders can be used to bypass Congress.

Ultimately, if Trump doesn't get party backing, he at least would not have much support in Congress (IN MY OPINION).

[Tabby]

I can't imagine Trump winning POTUS, even if he did somehow get the republican nomination. I fail to believe there are enough people in America that would vote for him. Hillary may not be all that popular, but she's nothing like that. That is why I don't think he'll win the nomination because at the end of the day, the republicans want to win the election and he's just not the guy to do it.

[Tuffytown]

I still think he is a plant. By whom I don't know but he seems hell bent on attracting the wing nuts and espousing such vitriol that he surely won't get the official party nomination. Now that he's making noises he might go independent again he stands the chance of being a real spoiler. Perhaps an establishment tactic to marginalize the tea party?

[Don Giovanni]

this is fascinating! Thanks to everyone who has answered. I'm really happy to see the back and forth positive discussion.
I should have used my memory - I remember both Nader and Perot running, but I guess at that point wasn't paying much attention to parties.

Tabby - that description of our electoral process is the most succinct i've ever seen, but boy, is our system messed up I still shake my head over the fact that the Bloc was for a while "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" Boggles my mind. Also, I have been reading about Carson who (IMHO) is a nut but somewhat less vile and hate filled than Trump. I'll have to read more about Cruz. I am a bit that his birth place hasn't become an issue, while Obama's was. Seems weird to me...

Back to the topic at hand - I can't imagine Trump winning POTUS, but is there really a chance that his lead will fall apart before the nomination?

[musical comedy]

I'm really happy to see the back and forth positive discussion.

You're happy because the back and forth discussion is all in agreement. Whack jobs, train wrecks, nut, etc. etc. None of those terms apply to any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat. Those are shallow comments. As I think I've written earlier, I do not believe a vast majority of posters (here or on other forums) really have a solid idea of each candidate's political platform and especially an understanding of the issues each of them is trying to address and fix. Instead, many just read the headlines or some cyber article and pass a judgement. Or they grab hold of something someone says and make a issue out it, usually distorting the meaning. I continue to research each one.

[Janet]

I rarely get participate in the political discussions here, but I have a "conspiracy theory" about Trump that I want to throw out... I think he was enticed to run for president by the Democratic party with the instructions to showcase the nutcase extremism in the Republican party and show where much of their platform would go if left unchecked. Since he began his run for the presidency he has taken every Republican plank and pushed it to the point of absurdity.

While he may have even as much as 30% of the Republican primary voters support, it is my opinion (and heartfelt hope!) that American voters as an entire group will see his excesses for what they are - ideas and concepts taken too far! He has generated a very lively discussion in America, and specifically within the Republican party about everything from immigration to tax reform. On each topic he has taken a stand so far off the edge of the cliff that only the crazies in the extreme right of the party are supporting him. The candidate who really wants to win the white house should make a quick dash to the center before they all fall off the cliff with Trump!

I know - it is pretty far fetched as a conspiracy theory, but it is one way to explain his bizarre run for the white house.

[Janet]

I still think he is a plant. By whom I don't know but he seems hell bent on attracting the wing nuts and espousing such vitriol that he surely won't get the official party nomination. Now that he's making noises he might go independent again he stands the chance of being a real spoiler. Perhaps an establishment tactic to marginalize the tea party?

Just read Tuffy's post and find I am not alone in thinking he is a plant. Guess I'm not original in the conspiracy theory world!!

[Don Giovanni]

Dear Musical Comedy (love your screen name BTW)
Please don’t ever put words in my mouth or deign to assume that you know why I’m happy/sad/frustrated/irritated…
If you think Trump is logical, you are most definitely entitled to your opinion. If you think his expressed ideas, if implemented, won’t lead to an unequivocal train wreck, you are absolutely entitled to think so.
If you don’t think the things he is saying or proposing are nuts, than you are entitled to think that.
I am equally entitled to think 180 degrees differently.
If you don’t believe that any of the terms expressed are applicable to any candidate, that’s your right. If you think the comments are shallow, that’s your right too. I happen to believe that the comments are worse than shallow, and that some of the planks in some candidates’ platforms are pretty ‘shallow’, unrealistic, not thought through, not workable etc. I’m sorry if you believe that my grasp of any candidate’s political platform does not measure up to yours. But then again, that’s your right.
The citizens of the United States of America take justifiable pride in their right to free speech. They must recognize, however, that every right comes with a concomitant responsibility, and that rights also extend to people whose opinions may differ from their own.
If you would like to join in the discussion, please explain to me what issue a database of Muslims in the US, including American citizens, is meant to address and fix. Would it also require the wearing of a yellow crescent? Please also explain how a wall along the Mexican border is feasible, and how it is logical to expect the Mexican government to pay for it. Then please go on to answer the same questions about Governor Walker’s (yes I know he has withdrawn) proposed fence along the Canadian border…approximately 3, 990 miles, not counting our border with Alaska which adds another 1,538 miles. Oh, and let’s also discuss building that wall across the Great Lakes.
If you think comments aimed at candidates are distasteful, so be it. I find the racist, misogynistic, vulgar comments expressed by Mr. Trump are vilely distasteful, and as you are entitled to your opinion, so am I to mine.
Please don’t assume you know what I read, or what I study or what I know. Not that I need to explain myself to you, and not that anything I say will likely hold any water with you, but I read several newspapers daily and peruse many online news sources daily as well.
And FWIW, I’m happy because several posters with different viewpoints are having an interesting, thoughtful conversation and attempting to answer my questions. I love back and forth discussions, including discussions of very widely differing opinions, when they are conducted with maturity and respect. This one has been.

[Tabby]

Janet, I have actually wondered the same thing. He seems way too ridiculous to be true yet he's been leading the polls for some time. Then again, I like a good conspiracy theory so perhaps I've managed to sway myself.

DG - if you look a little more closely, Carson is actually far more violent and scary than Trump could ever be. He throws around the Nazi term a whole lot. And he's a doctor which gives him more credibility. Scary. BTW I don't think you only read headlines - you seem pretty informed to me.

[WheresMyWhite]

If you think comments aimed at candidates are distasteful, so be it. I find the racist, misogynistic, vulgar comments expressed by Mr. Trump are vilely distasteful, and as you are entitled to your opinion, so am I to mine.

FWIW, and IN MY OPINION only...

What gets me is referring to people with less than "helpful" adjectives such as 'whack job' or 'nut' or some of the other less "productive" adjectives I've seen.

Referring to a person as racist or misogynistic etc doesn't bother me as much as I feel the adjectives are strong but also descriptive enough.

So, is there is a difference between calling someone a 'racist' or 'misogynistic' and 'whack job'??

For me, 'whack job' turns me off the discussion while I can handle the adjectives that DG used here... other's thoughts?

[Tabby]

I've used "whack job" more than a few times. I use it in the context of people like Trump because he seems to be off the wall in so many categories that to call him a mere racist ignores too many of his other traits. I guess for me, "whack job" means just about everything that comes out of his mouth is against more than one principal that I value AND believe is important to society (I do understand my views on this may differ from others). So I apologize for lack of specificity but I still can't think of a better way to describe this particular man.

[WheresMyWhite]

Tabby, maybe my personal negative reaction to whack job is all the times the anti-gunners have referred to the "pro" side as whack jobs.

I'm fine with a difference of opinion and I'm fine with some adjectives but I, as you know , lean toward the "pro" side on the 2nd Amendment and I don't like being included in the 'whack job' group just because my opinion is different than others.

I would agree completely that Trump is off the wall in many areas - I'd not vote if he was my only choice. But, in calling him a whack job calls everyone else a whack job because their view is against your principals and your opinion of what is important to society. And, in looking at the opinion polls, there are many who like him... I don't know why but I also don't want to think of them as whack jobs.

Maybe it is splitting hairs but to me global negative statements based on personal opinion aren't productive. More descriptive statements that cover the difference in personal opinion are more conducive to discussion without getting those whose opinions are different than yours getting their backs against a wall before the discussion is even started.

[Don Giovanni]

One comment before I quit and leave the political forum.

I'm not entirely sure why calling someone in a potential position of power who espouses things that are violent, racist, misogynistic, impractical, impossible and totally out of the realm of reality (a wall across the border, funded by mexico? A database of all Muslims, including US citizens) a whack job, but if that term is offensive, I apologize. To me, off the wall and whack job are just not that far apart... I don't recall calling anyone else a whack job, or calling Trump a whack job because his views are "against my principles". I called him a whack job because what he is espousing is, much more than just "against my principles"; it is against common decency, (read some of his comments about women, for instance) against your constitution, (database of muslims) against common sense, (building a wall), ..... I'm wasting my effort....

I didn't mention guns or the second amendment in my posts, but since they've been brought up....What say you about the self described Christians carrying weapons "patrolling" in front of a mosque saying they wanted to "Show force" Is that okay? That is the kind of action that Trump and his words inspire. Would you think it would be okay if Muslims did the same thing in front of a Church of any denomination?


Global negative statements based on personal opinion - guilty as charged. I can't think of a single thing that I find positive about Mr. Trump. I agree with Tabby - Carson is pretty scary too, but his numbers are declining while Trump's rise. It really scares me to think that so many of my neighbours to the south approve of him and believe his rhetoric. It terrifies me to think that it's within the realm of possibility that he could become your president.

Bye

[emmalou]

I really don't think it's in the realm of possibility. Trump will not be elected president. We may have our stupid moments but we're not that stupid.

Trump and Carson are good media so they are blasted all over our screens. Campaigning hasn't even revved up yet. I expect next year the ludicrous will fall away and the status quo politicians (Bush, Rubio, etc) will rise.

I think the fact that Trump and Carson do seem so possible now shows how pissed off the American public are at the status quo.

[WheresMyWhite]

To add to emmalou, I am not even convinced that Trump can get the party endorsement and be the Republican candidate on the general election ballot.

News/media anymore isn't as much about information as it is about drawing in readers/viewers to get the almightily advertising dollar.

If anyone wants to discuss DG's questions, let me know otherwise I am not going to waste the energy responding

[Tabby]

I suspect DG hasn't read many of your posts in the gun threads. I'm pretty sure I've used the term "whack job" there as well and I'm sorry if I have offended you. I meant it in the same way there - where there are just so many things wrong with the person to call them one single adjective is actually misleading. As with DG, it's not merely my personal opinion - there is outright stupidity/racism/misogyny/violence/fill_in_the_blank etc. that goes beyond personal opinion. When someone crosses the line on several of these things, the term whack job is (in my opinion) appropriate. WMW - I've never called you personally a whack job and from what I've seen you write here, I doubt you'd fit the profile.

[musical comedy]

If anyone wants to discuss DG's questions, let me know otherwise I am not going to waste the energy responding

I hope to comment on them later. I need to organize my thoughts and it's going to take a while to put it all together.

[Figgy]

given the choice between a conspiracy theory and plain old stupidity or incompetence, always put your money on the latter.

There's no conspiracy with Trump. He woke up one morning and decided that he wanted the publicity and he wanted to run for president. He's doing that. Making a complete farce of the election system but hey, we have Clive Palmer. Billionaire who ran for the Senate, my theory on Palmer is that he ran for political office to get out of paying tax or hide the house of cards that his business empire really is. Trump would have business reasons for running for president. Its gaining him notoriety at least. He'll make squillions in future projects trading on that reputation. That or he's just plain lost all his marbles.

I must admit, I don't follow US politics closely enough to be up on who represents what, who's allied with who, and what everyone's policies are.

[Tabby]

While I normally agree with you, Figgy, the level of incompetence Trump is displaying is so high it's got my "conspiracy theory radar" up. Can someone who successfully manipulates the business world on a regular basis truly be that incompetent?

(I know the answer but humour me if you can )

[WheresMyWhite]

But Tabby... Trump shows incompetence as a politician, no? I would venture to say his business acumen probably demonstrates less incompetence (which may be what you were thinking... I don't know).

The only thing that makes me think he's not political incompetent is that he is doing well in the polls (at the moment). People seem to like him (well, some people anyway, I have not a clue why). If he really was an incompetent, then I suspect he wouldn't be doing as well as he is - do I think he's electable as POTUS...? IN MY OPINION, no

[Tuffytown]

Yeah, I don't see it as incompetence, more arrogance.

[ejm]

After 35+ years in the Thoroughbred racing and breeding indusry, I can tell you for a fact that extreme success in business does not necessarily equal good sense in other areas.

Hang around the Keeneland sales pavilion long enough and you'll see a parade extremely wealthy and self-made folks conned by shady agents and trainers and absolutely gutted for multiple millions in their dealings in the horse world. And often leave a few years later after they get tired of paying through the nose for mediocre results.

Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of wonderful, solid, honest folks in the Thoroughbred game, but anywhere there's a quick buck to be made on a horse you'll find plenty of bottom-feeders as well.

[Tabby]

The only thing that makes me think he's not political incompetent is that he is doing well in the polls (at the moment). People seem to like him (well, some people anyway, I have not a clue why). If he really was an incompetent, then I suspect he wouldn't be doing as well as he is - do I think he's electable as POTUS...? IN MY OPINION, no

This is the part that makes me question the "competence" question. I agree he is not electable as POTUS but he's certainly a huge distraction. From what, I'm not sure.

[Fatcat]

I'm surprised no one is discussing his proposal today calling for a "ban on incoming Muslims". Wow. Just wow. This man scares the h*ll out of me.

[Figgy]

I came on here because of his proposal, obviously he is oblivious to US founding principles of religious tolerance and freedom? And, isn't there a smack of racism here as well?

The man is a gift to the Democratic Party. He's also a gift to the media.

Question - where does the kingmaker (Rupert Murdoch) stand in respect to Trump?

A friend who is a political campaign manager here had an interesting point about Trump and the USA Right - that the US need to feed on their far right frenzy, wallow in it, learn what a political, economic and social mistake that movement really is and then devolve into the second world country it really is.

Is Trump part of a wider US identity problem, this marriage to extreme right wing politics despite its obvious failings or is he simply a gift to the left?

[Spiritpaws]

I don't think it is an identity problem; many countries have political groups that are conservative, moderate, and left. Extremism in the US either right or left doesn't get elected president.

Trump's proposed ban on incoming Muslims, even if they travel here for business, is simply pandering to the extreme right who will vote in the primaries. It also gives him plenty of ongoing press coverage: the more outrageous he is, the more press he gets.

[WheresMyWhite]

Trump's proposed ban on incoming Muslims, even if they travel here for business, is simply pandering to the extreme right who will vote in the primaries. It also gives him plenty of ongoing press coverage: the more outrageous he is, the more press he gets.

Spiritpaws, I know we don't always agree but on this I agree completely!

Trump will get out the voters who like what he is saying... for the many that don't like what he is saying but are registered republicans, they may not bother to vote in their primary which plays right into Trump's hand.

He loves being flashy and loves the attention from the media... he's definitely all over both of those.

I just hope the RNC isn't so blinded by his "popularity" and rhetoric that they make him the republican candidate on the ballot. He has, IMO, no chance of winning the general election and he would be handing the election to the democratic nominee.

Me? Neither the republican or democratic candidates will be getting my vote so I just sit back and watch the political carnage

[Tuddy]

I'm surprised no one is discussing his proposal today calling for a "ban on incoming Muslims". Wow. Just wow. This man scares the h*ll out of me.

I know very little regarding US Politics, but I did just read an article stating the White House says Trump's plan to ban Muslims disqualifies him from running for President.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2387899/white ... residency/

[Tabby]

Tuddy, I just read the same thing in CBC and was wondering if they had turned into the Onion: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-defe ... -1.3355433

My American friends, is this true?

[WheresMyWhite]

Oath of Office for President of the United States
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Along with the general "separation of church and state" that is woven throughout the Constitution and history of the US... you be the judge.

[Figgy]

I don't think it is an identity problem; many countries have political groups that are conservative, moderate, and left. Extremism in the US either right or left doesn't get elected president.

Trump's proposed ban on incoming Muslims, even if they travel here for business, is simply pandering to the extreme right who will vote in the primaries. It also gives him plenty of ongoing press coverage: the more outrageous he is, the more press he gets.

That was the commentary here as well. That said, there is no excuse for it. What it does is lower the level of political debate and this rhetoric plays right into the hands of neonazies and those who feel 'disaffected' by their politicians.

WhereisWhite - are you going to vote at all?

[Tabby]

Very interesting - thanks WMW.

Off topic but I'm curious as to the references to "male inhabitants" in section 2. Is this because it predates women getting the right to vote? Is there a further amendment that covers female inhabitants?

[WheresMyWhite]

WhereisWhite - are you going to vote at all?

Absolutely. I firmly believe in voting and exercising my right to vote. Too many people in this world don't have free and open elections (often despite what their governments may claim).

One of the first things I did when I moved was register to vote.

I personally believe that one has no right to complain about the state of "things" if one doesn't vote. Maybe my candidates and issues don't win but at least I voiced my opinion.

For a time, I was an election judge and that is also quite interesting to see who comes in and who does not.

[WheresMyWhite]

Off topic but I'm curious as to the references to "male inhabitants" in section 2. Is this because it predates women getting the right to vote? Is there a further amendment that covers female inhabitants?

Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The 19th pretty much was the only one I could quickly find that really deals with gender.

FWIW, the first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, were all ratified in 1791. The 14th ratified in 1868 and the 19th in 1920. There are only 27 amendments, the last being ratified in 1992 and deals with when congressional salary changes can take affect.

The 21st amendment (1933) repealed the 18th (1919). This was the start and end of prohibition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Tabby]

LOL - our Charter of Rights is pretty new (1982) so we have all that language in it.

All that aside, can the White House declare Trump disqualified from running? Clearly his proposals violate your constitution (and the oath he would have to take) but is this a role of the White House to disqualify a candidate? Or is this just media hype?