Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumLOLOL!!! Trump has got Bush camp sh*tting themselves... AND FoxNews & the GOP
Speaks for itself -- and talk of a 3rd party run could only make them sweat even more... nothing says 'maverick' like Trump running like a Perot in 2016... and that is only if he doesn't manage to nudge out the rest of the idiots in the clown car.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)This has got to be the worst thing since mommy said 'we don't need another Bush in the White House'
bwahahahahahahahahah
Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Who uses the phrase "haven't stopped someone dead" ?
Rove is despicable.
gblady
(3,541 posts)Loud and clear! I was thinking did I really just hear that?
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Midnight Writer
(21,835 posts)That's why they have so many candidates. It is everyone for themselves and none for the party. Each candidate aims to increase their own worth on the talk-speech-book circuit, or maybe a spot on a corporate board or a contract with Fox News.
Look at the Sarah Palin model. She got book deals, speaking engagements, reality TV shows, and a million dollar a year contract to make occasional appearances on Fox News. It's good "work" if you can get it, and the way to get it is by raising your profile in a Quixotic Presidential bid.
Oh, and it also feeds a narcissistic ego.
panfluteman
(2,075 posts)Could be! As the presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said in the previous video I watched: The REAL fringe party is the Republican party! They're totally catering to the 1%, and are simply pulling the wool over the eyes of all others who are foolish enough to vote for them, who can let their ideological blinders blind them to what is really going on - that they're getting screwed blind by the GOP!
Quixote1818
(29,013 posts)George just sounded like an dumb ass but with a bit of charisma.
panfluteman
(2,075 posts)Never before have we seen a Republican field that is not only super crowded, but also super crazy and inept! It's such a clown car that you'd really have to be super naive, super crazy, or super-blinded by right wing dogma to vote for one of these guys, or even to think that one is clearly better than any of the rest.
Also, the brave new world of new political realities brought about by the disastrous Citizens United SCOTUS decision has brought two candidates into the spotlight who have distinguished themselves by their unique and independent positions regarding the flood of corporate cash in our electoral process. On the left, there is Bernie Sanders, who is running a purely populist campaign that has refused any donations from SuperPACS and corporate special interest groups. And on the right, you have Donald Trump, who is a billionaire himself, and fully able to fund his own election campaign without any outside donations - which gives him the ability, and the right, to say or do anything he wants. Both of these candidates have a certain independence from the political mainstream that is upsetting to its "business as usual" corporate money machine.
The existence of these two candidates, Sanders and Trump, and their surging popularity in the 2016 race poses some interesting questions as to the whole purpose and intent of Citizens United, and reveals that there might be "bugs" or defects in this decision that its proponents didn't foresee. Bernie is showing us the power of populism to overcome corporate elites - if the Citizens are United! And the Donald may show us the power of an independent "loose nut" billionaire to wreck havoc with the carefully laid plans of the corporate plutocrats. Who knows? The Koch brothers and other billionaire and corporate interests who were behind Citizens United just might find that they have created a Frankenstein's monster that will come back to bite them in the butt!
I have my own theory about the amazing popularity of Donald Trump, which is that, for today's TV-addicted electorate, the outrageous positions Trump is taking, and the big surge of interest that these positions are attracting is a lot like a reality show on TV. In other words, in the eyes of the vast majority of voters, the 2016 Republican race may be nothing more than one big reality show. Of course, it's still very early in the race, and it remains to be seen whether or not this fascination with Donald Trump is just a passing whim or infatuation, or whether it will have real staying power.
trusty elf
(7,403 posts)[img][/img]
Skittles
(153,261 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
NEXT!!!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)Fox news is in a pickle. As the unofficial voice of the Republican Party, they obviously must bend towards the one hope that can defeat Hillary, ...Jeb Bush. But The Don's views mirror their wingnut audiences preferences that they themselves have cultivated and whose whacky hosts rail on about 24/7.
IHateTheGOP
(1,059 posts)NCjack
(10,279 posts)that are less than the sum. Thank you, Donnie.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)because the Ross Perot "cost George Bush Sr. the election" lie/myth is getting old yet never seems to die. It is mainly guys on the right, but manages to have a following on the left as well. Have the myth peddlers not noticed how states like California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, Delaware, Maryland, and Connecticut, all worth 152 EVs alone, last went Republican before Bill Clinton and never have gone since? New Hampshire, 4 EVs, Bush II barely won it, Dem 5 for 6 times since 1992. Ross Perot did not elect Clinton, in fact he helped Bush Sr. stay in the race, if you notice how Clinton was taken down a lot more by Perot's re-entry than Bush, who continued to poll the same upper 30s and low 40s he polled against Clinton, while Clinton polled 50s and upper 40s before Perot came back. Bush Sr. was as popular in 1992 as Jimmy Carter was in 1980. What about Ross Perot's liberal stances on most things? (he wanted to "Expand Medicare to cover all Americans," sounds like the public option to me). Even the exit polls ()from election night 1992 show Bush loses by at least the same margin sans Perot, and that was after Perot eroded Clinton's lead. (note: the picture with the exit poll results is from Roper Center; you have to be a member but can join free if you go to most universities or are part of certain media orgs. I used someone else's screenshot. You can, however, see for free on the Roper website that Perot was no Nader in terms of group voting)
But hey, if they wanna delude themselves that 1992 was "proof" America wanted hard-right candidates and they wanna keep nominating people who say hard right things ("corporations are people" or do hard-right things (Terri Schiavo, etc.), let 'em. I just wish the media would stop trying to discredit Clinton's victories which turned many former GOP states into Democratic strongholds. Donald Trump repeated this lie to Byron York. All the more proof he's a joke.