[billw55]

kenberg, on 2016-February-23, 10:53, said:

Change of focus. Early in the campaign season it was my opinion that Hillary was a weak candidate and if the Republicans could get their act together they could beat her. I want to vary that, now that it appears that Trump will be the Republican nominee. Surely he can be beaten if the Dems have any sense at all. Surely voters can see that a guy who promises everything and has a history of escaping responsibity for his mistakes through the filing of bankruptcy is not a really great choice for president.

Agree, a Trump candidacy is obviously, blatantly hopeless in a general election. The only thing his followers can accomplish is electing Clinton. But they are too foolish to know this.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2016-February-23, 13:55, said:

Agree, a Trump candidacy is obviously, blatantly hopeless in a general election. The only thing his followers can accomplish is electing Clinton. But they are too foolish to know this.

It is still too early to tell, but it could be that a Trump or Cruz candidacy would effectively end the current GOP and force the creation of a new centrist party. Personally, I think this would be a good outcome and good for all of America - to require statesmanship of our statesmen.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-February-23, 14:27, said:

It is still too early to tell, but it could be that a Trump or Cruz candidacy would effectively end the current GOP and force the creation of a new centrist party. Personally, I think this would be a good outcome and good for all of America - to require statesmanship of our statesmen.

We must learn to keep our fantasies under control

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2016-February-23, 13:55, said:

Agree, a Trump candidacy is obviously, blatantly hopeless in a general election.

I wish I were as confident as that.

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on 2016-February-23, 15:21, said:

I wish I were as confident as that.

Trump's business record is abysmal. His personal returns have been average (at best). More importantly, anyone who was ever stupid enough to trust Donald Trump with any of their hard earned dollars have been taken to the cleaners. Case in point, the following chart compares the return on Trump Hotels and Casino resorts with the S&P 500. The period covered is from 1995 when this went public to 2004 when they were delisted. During this time, the S&P increased 250% and other casino companies saw their share price double. Trump's investors lost 90% of their share value.



The returns from his other investments show the same basic theme. Trump has enriched himself personally, but his investors have gotten wiped out. Why would anyone want this corrupt boob in a position of power.

If Trump makes it to the general, expect Hillary to hit this same theme relentlessly. (I don't understand why Right to Rise or some such hasn't done so already)

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2016-February-23, 15:50, said:

The returns from his other investments show the same basic theme. Trump has enriched himself personally, but his investors have gotten wiped out. Why would anyone want this corrupt boob in a position of power.

True, but it doesn't look to me that his support comes from folks with money to invest...

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on 2016-February-23, 16:34, said:

True, but it doesn't look to me that his support comes from folks with money to invest...

Agreed, but at the same time the HATE the elite.

Right now, Trump's brand is based on being a self made businessman who doesn't need to take money from the corrupt political elite.
As soon as you start hammering him for stealing from "ordinary people", "pension funds" and the like, things are going to change.

Pile on with the sordid history of "Trump University" which did rob from ordinary Joe's...

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-February-23, 10:53, said:

I went to the Sanders website and it said that his lan is that every person should get the health care that he or she needs.

Does this not wave a huge red flag to you Ken? The healthcare that you think you need may well be rather different from what any such plan would envisage!

[Winstonm]

In the countries I have read about that have national healthcare, private insurance is still available for those who feel they need more than basic healthcare coverage.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2016-February-24, 07:30, said:

In the countries I have read about that have national healthcare, private insurance is still available for those who feel they need more than basic healthcare coverage.

In many cases here in the UK, the private healthcare basically gets you a faster diagnosis (or minor op/procedure). If you're diagnosed with something major, often the care falls back on the NHS.

You don't get the 6 weeks for one scan, then you need another type, another 6 weeks, then you need a third, another 6 weeks situation I was faced with in the NHS.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2016-February-24, 06:06, said:

Does this not wave a huge red flag to you Ken? The healthcare that you think you need may well be rather different from what any such plan would envisage!

Yes and no. It is one more indicator, hardly needed, that important problems are usually complex.

I do not feel that as I age I should do the world a favor and die. I also don't believe the world is obligated to spend whatever it takes to prolong my life beyond what nature intends. Somewhere in-between seems right. Pursuing this morbid line a bit, an important thing to me is that I should have the almost uncontested right to end my own life should I choose to do so (no such plans at present!). Life doesn't go on forever, and I want the right, should I so decide, to say "We are done here".

But until then, I think helping with the medical needs of aging is very reasonable. It is not good for people who have lived a responsible life to be bankrupted by medical expenses in the closing years of their lives. In the other direction, I would also be uneasy about my tax dollars supporting 10K a month nursing care for someone whose wealth considerably exceeds mine.

So yes, saying "every person should get the health care that he or she needs" without further detail on what that means raises some questions, such as "What do you mean?:

[mike777]

kenberg, on 2016-February-24, 11:17, said:

Yes and no. It is one more indicator, hardly needed, that important problems are usually complex.

I do not feel that as I age I should do the world a favor and die. I also don't believe the world is obligated to spend whatever it takes to prolong my life beyond what nature intends. Somewhere in-between seems right. Pursuing this morbid line a bit, an important thing to me is that I should have the almost uncontested right to end my own life should I choose to do so (no such plans at present!). Life doesn't go on forever, and I want the right, should I so decide, to say "We are done here".

But until then, I think helping with the medical needs of aging is very reasonable. It is not good for people who have lived a responsible life to be bankrupted by medical expenses in the closing years of their lives. In the other direction, I would also be uneasy about my tax dollars supporting 10K a month nursing care for someone whose wealth considerably exceeds mine.

So yes, saying "every person should get the health care that he or she needs" without further detail on what that means raises some questions, such as "What do you mean?:

Along this line of discussion, do posters view assisted suicide as a constitutionally protected right?

In others words is it against the constitution for your local town or state to ban assisted suicide?

[y66]

kenberg, on 2016-February-24, 11:17, said:

I do not feel that as I age I should do the world a favor and die. I also don't believe the world is obligated to spend whatever it takes to prolong my life beyond what nature intends. Somewhere in-between seems right. Pursuing this morbid line a bit, an important thing to me is that I should have the almost uncontested right to end my own life should I choose to do so (no such plans at present!). Life doesn't go on forever, and I want the right, should I so decide, to say "We are done here".

OED defines morbid as "Of a person, mental state, etc.: characterized by excessive gloom or apprehension, or (in later use) by an unhealthy preoccupation with disease, death, or other disturbing subject; given to unwholesome brooding". This line of discussion is anything but morbid IMHO. Not pursuing it often results in *very* costly, counterproductive and even horrific outcomes. Worse even than Trump becoming president.

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2016-February-23, 15:50, said:

Trump's business record is abysmal. His personal returns have been average (at best). More importantly, anyone who was ever stupid enough to trust Donald Trump with any of their hard earned dollars have been taken to the cleaners. Case in point, the following chart compares the return on Trump Hotels and Casino resorts with the S&P 500. The period covered is from 1995 when this went public to 2004 when they were delisted. During this time, the S&P increased 250% and other casino companies saw their share price double. Trump's investors lost 90% of their share value.

The returns from his other investments show the same basic theme. Trump has enriched himself personally, but his investors have gotten wiped out. Why would anyone want this corrupt boob in a position of power.

If Trump makes it to the general, expect Hillary to hit this same theme relentlessly. (I don't understand why Right to Rise or some such hasn't done so already)

This is all obvious to anyone except his supporters.

One thing I have learned from his candidacy, is that the white working class racist demographic is larger than I thought. Maybe I was naive.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2016-February-24, 15:27, said:

OED defines morbid as "Of a person, mental state, etc.: characterized by excessive gloom or apprehension, or (in later use) by an unhealthy preoccupation with disease, death, or other disturbing subject; given to unwholesome brooding". This line of discussion is anything but morbid IMHO. Not pursuing it often results in *very* costly, counterproductive and even horrific outcomes. Worse even than Trump becoming president.

That is one serious "worse".

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-February-24, 15:45, said:

This is all obvious to anyone except his supporters.

One thing I have learned from his candidacy, is that the white working class racist demographic is larger than I thought. Maybe I was naive.

Trump's supporters clearly care little about facts. I'll bet most of them still believe his "birther" rhetoric about Obama (and probably now think that Cruz is Canadian).

It's too bad The Colbert Report is gone, he would be having a field day extolling the "truthiness" of all the BS that comes out of Trump's mouth.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2016-February-25, 12:36, said:

Trump's supporters clearly care little about facts. I'll bet most of them still believe his "birther" rhetoric about Obama (and probably now think that Cruz is Canadian).

It's too bad The Colbert Report is gone, he would be having a field day extolling the "truthiness" of all the BS that comes out of Trump's mouth.

I will go out on a limb and predict any GOP candidate is going to lose the vote of the mass of Colbert viewers.

I also predict they are going to lose Calif big, also, black voters, Hispanic voters, single women voters.

[kenberg]

Driving from here to there, ot from to to fro, today I was listening to Fresh Air on NPR. They were doing a story on Atlantic City. It's a half day's drive from where I live, and I was there once nefore the casinos and twice after the casinos, never to see the casinos. The observation was made, agreeing with what I said some thirty years ago, that even when the casinos were doing well this did not much help the city. And, of course, the casinos have crashed.

So why mention this. North Christie and Trump were very involved in the casinos of AC. A fundamental fact about running a casino: The idea is not to make money by socially productive enterprise, rather it is to cash in the fact that there are a lot of stupid people who will stuff coins or credit cards into machines. You build the thing, you bring in the suckers, you rake off the profits, the thing goes broke, you file for bankruptcy leaving the town and the suckers you got to buy in holding the bag.

We keep hearing about how the GOP leaders just don't know what to do about Trump. They keep hoping he will make some huge mistake such as talking about a woman bleeding from wherever or dissing John McCain. He does ot, he gets applause. Memo to GOP bigwigs. Stop playing Trump's game. Put forth the fact that Trump watches out for Trump. He plays people for suckers, he is good at it, and you, dear voter, might wish to examine, in the light of Trump history, whether Trump will be watching out for you or watching ut for Trump.

I'm no political genius but I hopefully can recognize a con artist when I see one. So can a lot of other people, but you may have to help them focus. The message: This guy plays suckers for their money and now for their votes. That's what he does. It is what he has always done. Trump takes care of Trump. Think it through before you vote.

If the GOP leaders can get their act together and keep to a message that is both simple and true, this problem can be taken care of.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2016-February-25, 18:19, said:

I'm no political genius but I hopefully can recognize a con artist when I see one. So can a lot of other people, but you may have to help them focus. The message: This guy plays suckers for their money and now for their votes. That's what he does. It is what he has always done. Trump takes care of Trump. Think it through before you vote.

Your message got through: Rubio labels Trump a ‘con artist’

Quote

“A con artist is about to take over the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and we have to put a stop to it,” Rubio said on CBS’s “This Morning.” He repeated the words “con artist” several more times and used the term in interviews with ABC and NBC.

Quote

Meanwhile, a super PAC supporting Rubio released new TV ads Friday morning that will air in March states. One argues Rubio is an “expert” on foreign policy while Trump “knows nothing” about it. The other claims Trump “puts himself first, and us last.”

Well done, Ken!

[barmar]

I thought Massachusetts might be different, but I heard on the radio this morning that the latest poll here gives him a 21 point lead among Republicans and Independents here. The only difference is that Kasich is tied for 2nd with Rubio, rather than Cruz.

From http://www.wbur.org/...clinton-sanders

Quote

Fifty-nine percent of likely voters in the Republican primary say they want a president who can bring real change to the political system. Only 25 percent say they want someone with the right experience to be president.

I agree that a Trump presidency would certainly be a change -- but not likely for the better. Maybe his supporters think there's nowhere to go but up.