Trump is KILLING the Republican chances for Presidency

a reply to: interupt42

People always like to forget that in 2008 Ron Paul had a following among young people that rivaled Obama's Hope and Change. Ron Paul could have beaten Obama in either 2008 or 2012 if the Republicans gave him a chance.

a reply to: interupt42

Actually, going by white voting turnout, Romney didn't do that badly. From the OP:

The white percentage of the electorate has been shrinking for decades and will be about 2 points smaller in 2016 than in 2012. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first president elected while losing the white vote by double digits. In 2012, Hispanics, the nation’s largest minority, were for the first time a double-digit (10 percent) portion of the electorate. White voters were nearly 90 percent of Romney’s vote. In 1988, George H.W. Bush won 59 percent of the white vote, which translated into 426 electoral votes. Twenty-four years later, Romney won 59 percent of the white vote and just 206 electoral votes. He lost the nonwhite vote by 63 points, receiving just 17 percent of it. If the Republicans’ 2016 nominee does not do better than Romney did among nonwhite voters, he will need 65 percent of the white vote, which was last achieved by Ronald Reagan when carrying 49 states in 1984. Romney did even slightly worse among Asian Americans — the fastest-growing minority — than among Hispanics. Evidently, minorities generally detected Republican ambivalence, even animus, about them. This was before Trump began receiving rapturous receptions because he obliterates inhibitions about venting hostility.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually, going by white voting turnout, Romney didn't do that badly.

No he didn't with the white vote.

However those votes could have just as likely gone to Ron Paul had the GOP endorsed him versus purposely sabotaging him on the MSM and labelling one of their own as as a crazy mad man.

a reply to: interupt42

Maybe. We can never know that for sure though. At this point it is just hypothetical pondering. For all we know, Ron Paul's hype could have been massively overblown by his supporters and he would have done even WORSE than Romney did. There is no way to know for sure.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ron Paul's hype could have been massively overblown by his supporters and he would have done even WORSE than Romney did. There is no way to know for sure.

True there is no way to know for sure , of course.

However, I'm not a betting man but I would take the bet on the side that would not have been the case.

From my own non scientific observations FWIW I have yet seen true Romney supporters besides the republican cheerleaders who always vote Republican. The GOP and republicans strategy for the Romney campaign slogan was to vote for the lesser evil.

Most republicans I have come across didn't like Romney and actually preferred Ron Paul but would go with who ever the GOP endorsed.

On the other hand from what I have personally observed is that the majority of the Ron Paul supporters didn't like Romney enough to vote for him even if the GOP endorsed him.

a reply to: interupt42

At the end of the day though, all of what you just said are anecdotes. They may help you rationalize RP's success or why he was marginalized, but they can never definitely answer the question of how the Republicans would have fared had they went with Paul instead of Romney. It may be fun to wish and dream, but one shouldn't try to use those wishes or dreams as a substitute for reality.

Believe me, I was a Paul supporter too, and today I fear for Bernie because I'm afraid that he is going to get the Paul treatment. So it's not like I'm biased against Paul or anything. I'm just trying to be as honest as possible about the situation regardless of my feelings on the matter.

So if we are going to take Bernie as a possible Ron Paul 2.0, Bernie is currently polling behind Hillary with Hillary having a significant lead. If the primaries would happen tomorrow, Bernie doesn't have the support to get the nomination regardless of all the internet hype surrounding him. This very well may have been the case for Paul as well when the Republican primaries happened in 2012.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed we can't say for sure. I also see Bernie getting the Ron Paul treatment.

IMO the GOP and the DNC are key tools used by the lobbyist to get the candidates they want elected. The Lobbyist control/influence the DNC,GOP , and the MSM with their money which in turn gives them control/influence and access to the gov't.

When the big lobbyist clients influence the gov't they control the consumers and the market which leads to what we got an Oligopoly controlled system.

Its a catch 22: If your candidate gets endorsed by either party they are likely to be more of the same and a lobbyist controlled puppet.



On the other hand if your candidate is not endorsed by either party they are likely to become the next Ron Paul and won't get elected.

Its not a good situation either way. IMO as long as we continue with a GOP or DNC candidate we aren't going to fix any of the issues that have existed for many many many decades.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

Maybe. We can never know that for sure though. At this point it is just hypothetical pondering. For all we know, Ron Paul's hype could have been massively overblown by his supporters and he would have done even WORSE than Romney did. There is no way to know for sure.

When I discussed Ron Paul with fiscal conservatives back in 2008 and even 2012 the biggest criticism I heard was that his plan was to cut everything but he didn't really explain how to implement that. He was like Trump is now in that he talked a big game but didn't indicate how he would get any of it through a hostile congress.

originally posted by: Kyrios0Zero

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
the racisim issues

Compare to the issues facing a poor white person. No affirmative action to help get a job.

Maybe see a laser specialist about getting that swastika tattoo removed from your neck and you would have better luck finding employment.

a reply to: Aazadan

See this is what I'm getting at. It reasons to me that MAYBE Paul's hype was a little overblown among its supporters and they wrongly thought that more people liked him than really did.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan

See this is what I'm getting at. It reasons to me that MAYBE Paul's hype was a little overblown among its supporters and they wrongly thought that more people liked him than really did.

It was. I never heard anyone talking about Ron Paul except on the internet.

I hear people talking about Trump (good or bad) everywhere I go.

There is no comparison.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan

See this is what I'm getting at. It reasons to me that MAYBE Paul's hype was a little overblown among its supporters and they wrongly thought that more people liked him than really did.

Paul wasn't popular with everyone, but the people that liked him REALLY liked him. He was a fundraising machine. I think that a lot of his crowds at rallys were the same dedicated people over and over again though which gave him great numbers but not a very wide base. I still think he could have won in 2008 if he got a chance, 2012 is a little more iffy but I don't see how he could have done any worse than Romney. Then again, his detractors will say the opposite and point out that if he was really as viable as his supporters claim he would have done better in the first place.

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan

See this is what I'm getting at. It reasons to me that MAYBE Paul's hype was a little overblown among its supporters and they wrongly thought that more people liked him than really did.

It was. I never heard anyone talking about Ron Paul except on the internet.

I hear people talking about Trump (good or bad) everywhere I go.

There is no comparison.

I can agree with this. Trump has name recognition, no one is asking "Trump who?". Oddly enough though I don't hear people discuss his positions very much, it's more about his personality, with only occasional comments about his positions (and most of those are lacking critical thought).

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Don't care what he is, not in my voting future. I just really don't care what Rickey Martin or any other entertainer has to say about politicians either. General statement on the Martin post, less about trump

Then why would you support Trump - the "entertainer" who has a Hollywood Star all his own...who says all sorts of things about 'politicans' being stupid??

Hmmmm?

The best President in my lifetime was former actor Ronald Regan. Al Franken is in politics. What's your point?

Reagan was a disaster for this country. His presidency is only held in such high regard by those brainwashed by the right wing propaganda machine.

His presidency is only held in such low regard by those brainwashed by the left wing propaganda machine

If by left wing propaganda you mean the facts he left for us in verifiable history, you would be correct. Look at his history, not the rhetoric.

The man has so many black marks on his record for the things he's done that it's astounding anyone can claim his greatness with a straight face.

No, by 'left wing propaganda' I mean the lies and distortions the Democrat party and leftists have poured into the heads of non-critical thinkers.

Reagan was a great President. Every President since him could only hope to be a pale shadow of him.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
No, by 'left wing propaganda' I mean the lies and distortions the Democrat party and leftists have poured into the heads of non-critical thinkers.

Reagan was a great President. Every President since him could only hope to be a pale shadow of him.

You do realize that by todays standards Reagan would be left wing?

So I guess what you're saying is that we need to move further to the left in order have another great president?

Yep its all part of the plan. Trump has his money on the Clintons. He's using the media and his "TV Personality" to turn important groups of people off of the GOP so they'll flock to the democrats.

Maybe I'm giving Trump's intelligence too much credit though.

originally posted by: asmall89
Yep its all part of the plan. Trump has his money on the Clintons. He's using the media and his "TV Personality" to turn important groups of people off of the GOP so they'll flock to the democrats.

Maybe I'm giving Trump's intelligence too much credit though.

The man with the largest ego in America.

Is leading in the polls for Leader of the free world.

The plan is Trump make America love him then walk away giving the win to Hillary ?

Let me think about it......Umm.......Not a chance in hell.

If Trump was really killing the republican chances, then I'd think that all the leftists would be cheering him on.

Perhaps the leftists are afraid of Trump popularity and of a Trump presidency.

Just food for thought. . . . . . . .

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Republican Party has always been a disgusting front for the insanely wealthy and the corporations. The Democratic Party was a bit better up until the New Left, when it suddenly threw away the working class and white middle class and decided instead to create a bizarre coalition of rich chic whites, minorities, and illegal immigrants who feel they are entitled to citizenship simply because they step on American soil. At this point, I don't care if either party collapses. They both exist only to serve the interests of the elite.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Interesting, then how do you feel about Trump and the way he has demonstrated through his show that he has a deep and abiding respect for minorities, by showing them as people of great intelligence, of great leadership potential?

Which minorities? He's been flat out disrespectful to both the Hispanic American communities and to the entire "Black Lives Matter" movement. And more importantly, he ignores the issues that matter to those groups. And he's gone on record as being opposed to gay marriage, too.

Does the fact that this time around the Republicans are fielding 4 minorities for President and the Democrats are only fielding old white people say something to you about who is giving lip service and who respects minorities as leaders and people who can make it in society without handouts?

I just said we're trying to get past race, which is what you quoted from my post. So why would you think a candidate's race or minority status would matter to me if I'm trying to get past race? I care about a candidate's policies, not their gender or ethnicity. Otherwise I would've supported crazy Herman Cain, crazy Sarah Palin, or blood thirsty Allen West.

Though if you're going to go that route, Bernie Sanders is Jewish & has fought for equal minority rights far more than the GOP's candidates have (and horrible Hillary's a female "minority", too). Also, I'm not a Dem. I've stated that before.

Many are decrying bigotry in the Republicans, but the actions show a different picture entirely. Could it be false accusations in order to keep minorities on the Democratic voting plantation.

Really? Do I have to pull out examples of Repub bigotry, especially against Hispanic communities (which is the point of the OP)? And what's with the "voting plantation" crap? Today's situation is absolutely nothing like the situation on actual plantations.

The Democrat policies have done several things to minorities:
They have worsened race relations to the point where to me they appear as bad as in the days of slavery; where 10 years ago I thought I was seeing great improvement.

Ok, now you've really lost credibility with me. The Democratic party sucks when it comes to helping racial minorities. But comparing today's race relations to race relations during the days of slavery is flat out insulting. You clearly don't have the slightest idea what things were like during the days of slavery, much less the times of the Black Codes & the following Jim crow era. Otherwise, you'd never make such a stupid comment.

They have kept minorities poor and families divided with welfare policies that encourage single motherhood and devalue fatherhood; and perpetuate generational poverty as a norm.

Typical rightwing talking point. How is helping the poor a bad thing? I believe it was the Prophet Jesus who said to sell off your possessions & give that money to the poor. Also, you clearly have no idea about the actual requirements or conditions for welfare.

The wide open borders have taken jobs from all Americans and have hurt the black community more than any other community according to the news sources I have been reading.

Like republicans care about black communities or employment in our communities. All I have to do is skim through threads here on ATS to see how republicans really feel about African American communities. There's even a thread here called "African American Names" where people kept posting about throwing applications in the trash if they had stereotypical African American names. But I guess that doesn't fit your narrative, huh?

The Democrats talk racial equality and respect for minorities, but their actions, their policies have produced more hardship and pain for minorities and kept them as voting slaves on the Democrat plantation, afraid of losing food and shelter if they don't vote Democrat. Which party has demonstrated real respect?

And there you go with the "slave" crap again. Seems to me that you're the one who doesn't want to get past racial issues. You can't even make an argument without constantly linking black people to slavery. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. After all, many conservatives & Republicans still believe that black people were better off during slavery than in modern times. And here's a link to show just a few high profile conservatives who've agreed with that stance:
Ten conservatives who have praised slavery

This just shows how out of touch you are with African American communities, our needs, wants, goals, and dreams. And for the record, I'm an African American who's not on welfare and has voted against Dems (Green Party ftw). But I support welfare & the rest of the social safety net because I'd rather have my tax dollars go towards helping poor Americans than go towards Halliburton on a military operation on the other side of the planet. But that doesn't fit your ridiculous argument either, does it?