The 2016 Presidential Election: Donald Trump, Wins Electoral College but is Behind by 2,000,000 Votes. Recount Possible.

THE IMPOSSIBLE HAPPENED! America convincingly elected Donald Trump, a man admittedly who does not have, nor care about, any experience in governing, A man who is provably a proud sexual predator, misogynist, racist, narcissistic (very possibly with personality disorder), Islamophobic, hate-monger. He embolden the ideas of the KKK and White Supremacists who will gleefully bash gays, LGBT, blacks, and Jews.

He brings with him an Alt-Right House and a Right-Leaning Senate. He will bring back an anti-human rights Supreme Court. Our economy and international relations will tank because of all the uncertainty about his ever changing positions and his unique ability to insult one-and-all.

This result is an unmitigated disaster of unprecedented proportions. Fear will certainly increase in America and I think violence. There will probably be a depopulation of America as religeous and racial minorities flee the country for safer territory; that will kill our economy. Hell, even I, who has devoted my whole life in serving America in one way or another, is so embarrassed at our collective stupidity that if I were single, I would consider moving myself to a country who cares about its citizens.

This is a first order Debacle!

  • 10/30/16 - UPDATED STATES LEFT IN CONTENTION (Table 3)
  • 10/30/16 - UPDATED CLINTON - TRUMP ELECTORAL VOTE COUNT (Table 10)
  • 10/30/16 - FINAL ODDS ON WINNING (Table 16)

CURRENT STATE-BY-STATE ANALYSIS:

Apparently the Comey note to Congress has had its desired effect ... the race is perceptibly tightening for no good reason other than the astounding release of that memo that effectively said nothing; Clinton is not personally involved, just her server ... maybe.

Hillary Clinton - 239 electoral votes and Donald Trump - 164 ( # of State Polls - 51; ONLY 270 NEEDED TO WIN) for States where the candidates have at least a 5 point lead or better. Several States that were in Clinton's column have slipped below the 5 point threshold.

In terms of "Safe States", Clinton now needs 31 More safe electoral votes to be our next President.

On the other hand, the number enough "Safe States" that are in Trump's pocket still leaves him 103 electoral votes away from victory.

Slam Dunk States For Hillary (based on polling data)

STATE
ELECTORAL VOTES
NEEDED TO WIN
Greater than 10 Point Lead
 
 
CALIFORNIA (23 Pt Lead)
55
215
DELAWARE (17 Pt Lead)
3
212
HAWAII (30 Pt Lead)
4
208
ILLINOIS (16 Pt Lead)
20
188
MARYLAND (34 Pt Lead)
10
178
MASSACHUSETTS (22 Pt Lead)
11
167
NEW YORK (18 Pt Lead)
29
138
VERMONT (24 Pt Lead)
3
135
WASHINGTON (12 Pt Lead)
12
123
D.C.
3
120
6 to 10 Point Lead
 
 
CONNECTICUT (10 Pt Lead)
7
113
MAINE CO2 (9 Pt Lead)
1
112
MAINE (7 Pr Lead)
2
110
 
 
 
 
 
 
NEW JERSEY (7 Pt Lead)
14
96
NEW MEXICO (7 Pt Lead)
5
91
OREGON (9 Pt Lead)
7
84
RHODE ISLAND (10 Pt Lead)
4
80
VIRGINIA (6 Pt Lead)
13
67
 
 
 
5 Point Lead
 
 
MINNESOTA (5 Pt Lead)
10
57
MICHIGAN (5 Pt Lead)
16
41
WISCONSIN (5 Pt Lead)
10
31
 
 
 
 
 
 
273
 
 
TABLE 1 - States Where Clinton Has a 5 Or More Point Lead (See More Complete Table Below)

States Trump Should Not Lose (based on polls)

STATES
ELECTORAL VOTES
NEEDED TO WIN
ALABAMA (11 Pt Lead)
9
261
 
 
261
ARKANSAS (20 Pt Lead)
6
255
 
 
255
IDAHO (22 Pt Lead)
4
251
INDIANA (7 Pt Lead)
11
240
KANSAS (13 Pt Lead)
6
234
KENTUCKY (13 Pt Lead)
8
226
LOUISIANA (12 Pt Lead)
8
218
 
 
218
MISSOURI (7 Pt Lead)
10
208
MISSISSIPPI (13 Pt Lead)
6
202
MONTANA (12 Pt Lead)
3
199
NEBRASKA (20 Pt Lead)
5
194
NORTH DAKOTA (28 Pt Lead)
3
191
OKLAHOMA (24 Pt Lead)
7
184
SOUTH CAROLINA (8 Pt Lead)
9
175
SOUTH DAKOTA (11 Pt Lead)
3
172
TENNESSEE (14 Pt Lead)
11
161
TEXAS (7 Pt Lead)
38
123
 
 
123
WEST VIRGINIA (24 Pt Lead)
5
118
WYOMING (38 Pt Lead)
3
115
 
155
 
TABLE 2

This Is What's Left To Split Up

STATE
ELECTORAL VOTES
 
ARIZONA (Tied)
11
11
ALASKA (3 Pt Trump Lead)
3
14
COLORADO (4.4 Pf Clinton Lead)
9
23
FLORIDA (Tied)
29
52
GEORGIA (3.8 Pt Trump Lead
16
68
IOWA (3.4 Pt Trump Lead)
6
74
NORTH CAROLINA (3.6 Pt CLINTON Lead)
15
89
MAINE CD 2 (2 Pt Trump Lead)
1
90
NEVADA (3 Pt CLINTON Lead)
6
96
OHIO (2 Pt Trump Lead)
18
114
UTAH (1 Pt Trump Lead over Conservative)
6
120
PENNSYLVANIA (3 Pt Clinton Lead)
20
140
NEW HAMPSHIRE (1.5 Pt Trump Lead
4
144
TABLE 3 - Remaining Electoral Votes In Play

AND THE WINNER WILL BE ...most likely be CLINTON !

STATE
ELECTORAL VOTES
CLINTON (Clinton - 42% v Trump - 40%)
TRUMP
ALABAMA
3
 
9 (34% - 45%)
ALASKA
3
 
3 (44% - 49%)
ARIZONA
11
 
11 (38% - 40%)
ARKANSAS
6
 
6 (33% - 53%)
CALIFORNIA
55
55 (51% - 32%)
 
COLORADO
9
9 (42% - 40%)
 
CONNECTICUT
7
7 (48% - 38%)
 
DELAWARE
3
3 (48% - 31%)
 
FLORIDA
29
29 (46% - 43%)
 
GEORGIA
16
 
16 (41% - 46%)
HAWAII
4
4 (58% - 28%)
 
IOWA
6
 
6 (39% - 42%)
IDAHO
4
 
4 (23% - 44%)
ILLINOIS
20
20 (49% - 33%)
 
INDIANA
11
 
11 (39% - 46%)
KANSAS
6
 
6 (34% - 45%)
KENTUCKY
8
 
8 (36% - 49%)
LOUISIANA
8
 
8 (35% - 48%)
MASSACHUSETTS
11
11 (54% - 31%)
 
MARYLAND
10
10 (60% - 26%)
 
MAINE
4
4 (42% - 37%)
 
MICHIGAN
16
16 (45% - 35%)
 
MINNESOTA
10
10 (44% - 40%)
 
MISSOURI
10
 
10 (39% - 47%)
MISSISSIPPI
6
 
6 (39% - 52%)
MONTANA
3
 
3 (38% - 51%)
NORTH CAROLINA
15
15 (45% - 42%)
 
NORTH DAKOTA
3
 
3 (32% - 60%)
NEBRASKA
5
 
5 (33% - 53%)
NEW HAMPSHIRE
4
4 (42% - 38%)
 
NEW JERSEY
14
14 (48% - 39%)
 
NEW MEXICO
5
5 (40% -32%)
 
NEVADA
6
6 (43% - 42%)
 
NEW YORK
29
29 (51% - 33%)
 
OHIO
18
18 (44% - 40%)
 
OKLAHOMA
7
 
7 (32% - 56%)
OREGON
7
7 (45% - 36%)
 
PENNSYLVANIA
20
20 (48% - 40%)
 
RHODE ISLAND
4
4 (47% - 37%)
 
SOUTH CAROLINA
9
 
9 (39% - 47%)
SOUTH DAKOTA
3
 
3 (37% 51%)
TENNESSEE
11
 
11 (36% - 50%)
TEXAS
38
 
38 (36% - 45%)
UTAH
6
 
6 (26% - 37%)
VIRGINIA
11
11 (45% - 37%)
 
VERMONT
3
3 (43% - 21%)
 
WASHINGTON
12
12 (45% - 33%)
 
WISCONSIN
10
10 (45% - 39%)
 
WEST VIRGINIA
5
 
5 (31% - 56%)
WYOMING
3
 
3 (27% - 65%)
TOTAL
538 (270 to win)
340 (over by 70)
195 (short 75)
EV from Polls over 5%
 
249
168
TABLE 10 - PREDICTED OUTCOME - FROM THE 34 STATES WHICH HAVE HAD POLLS IN 2016 (the bolded States are locks (10% or over) for that candidate)

Odds on Certain Political Outcomes

 
Ds
Rs
LIBERTARIAN
TO WIN PRESIDENCY
93% Up
9% Down
0% Steady
Ds TAKE BACK SENATE
79% Up
 
 
Ds TAKE BACK HOUSE
4% Down
 
 
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SEATED
1% Steady
 
 
GET AT LEAST 200 EV
99% Steady
88% Up
 
GET AT LEAST 250 EV
97% Up
13% Down
 
GET AT LEAST 300 EV
92% Steady
3% Down
 
GET AT LEAST 350 EV
1% Down
1% Steady
 
WIN ARIZONA
39% Down
61% Up (Keep)
 
WIN GEORIA
7% Down
93% Up
 
WIN MISSOURI
7% Down
93% Up
 
WIN VIRGINIA
98% Up
2% Down
 
WIN COLORADO
96% Steady
4% Steady
 
WIN OHIO
46% Down
54% Up
 
WIN NEVADA
93% Up
7% Down
 
WIN IOWA
25% Way Down
75% Way Up
 
WIN NORTH CAROLINA
78% Up
22% Down
 
WIN NC SENATE
2% Down Steady
98% Up (Keep)
 
WIN NV SENATE
93% Up (Keep)
7% Down
 
WIN PA SENATE
94% Way Up (Gain 1)
6% Way Down (Loss)
 
WIN IL SENATE
99% Steady (Gain 2)
1% Down (Loss)
 
WIN NH SENATE
31% Up
69% Up (Keep)
 
WIN WI SENATE
99% Steady (Gain 3)
1% Steady (Loss)
 
WIN CO SENATE
96% Up (Keep)
4% Down
 
WIN FL SENATE
1% Steady
99% Steady (Keep)
 
TABLE 16 - SOURCE - http://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/predict? THIS TABLE WILL BE PERIODICALLY UPDATED AS THE ODDS CHANGE

How Many Paths to Victory Does Hillary Have and How Many Does Trump Have?

USING THE INFORMATION IN THE TABLE 3, ONE NOW COUNT the number of ways each candidate can win.

HILLARY CLINTON - Assuming nothing changes for states like Colorado, she has Clinched the presidency

Path 1 - None Needed

DONALD TRUMP

Path 1 - Trump Can't Win, there are no paths to victory left.

The Changing Electoral Map

ONE THING IS FOR SURE, DONALD TRUMP IS TURNING POLITICS ON ITS HEAD. And this includes the Electoral Map. What use to be Red, may vote Blue. What use to be Purple will vote Blue. Some Blue States may end up being shaky.

Consider this:

  • Colorado, a Purple State, is solidly with Clinton
  • Virginia, a Purple State, is solidly with Clinton
  • Arizona, a solidly Red State, is now undecided
  • Georgia, a solidly Red State, is now undecided
  • Florida, a Purple State, is leaning toward Clinton
  • North Carolina, a Red turned Purple State, is leaning toward Clinton

Only time will tell if Trump makes a come back, but the current odds for him winning are 21%.

NEWS

  • Nov 8, 2016 - Voting Begins
  • Nov 6, 2016 - FBI Director Comey tells Congress there was nothing in the emails to change his mind about not prosecution Clinton and won't reopen the investigation. In the meantime, the polls narrowed noticiable for Clinton and down-ballot Democrats. Comey's odd actions probably cost the Ds ANY chance of taking the House, slim as they were.
  • Oct 27, 2016 - FBI Director Comey sent a note to Congress saying emails were found in the Anthony Weiner investigation MAY be related to Clinton's server and they MAY reopen her investigation IF they find anything. This questionable action began a new clamor from the alt-right against HRC.
  • Oct 14, 2016 - The early Oct release of Donald Trump making sexually crass remarks that borders on, if not crosses over, the line of admitting to sexual assault on a crowded media bus; tied with his debate #2 denial that he has ever done what he said he has done; tied with 9 women so far coming forward to refute his denial has crushed his campaign.
  • Sept 27, 2016 - In August, Clinton's lead increased significantly; only to give it all up with a bad September. How, the vast majority of pundits on the Right and the Left say she killed Trump in the first debate yesterday.
  • Aug 9, 2016 - The debates are over and so are the conventions; the convention bounces have subsided; so where does that leave the race? Clinton pulling steadily head in national polls and leading in State polls.
  • Mar 10, 2016 - A FIRST! The GOP had a civil debate. This was such a rare occurrence that the civility itself was the news and not the substance of the debate.
  • Mar 7, 2016 - Michigan is Tomorrow. So far, generally speaking, Hillary has won the broader primary states and Bernie the more narrow caucus states with large white populations. Hillary has won IA, MA, NV, then the Southern tier VA, TN, SC, GA, AL, AR, LA, and TX. Bernie, on the other hand took, as expected, VT, NH, ME as well as MI, CO, OK, NE, and KS. THE GOP is much more diverse with Ted Cruz performing better than expected and Donald Trump doing worse. BTW, only Rubio and Kasich are left to round out the GOP field. To date, Trump has won - VT, NH, MA, VA, KY, TN, SC, GA, AL, AR, LA. Cruz has taken - ME, TX, AK, OK, KS, IA. Rubio, trailing far behind has tucked away MI and PR; Rubio is behind in FL. Kasich has had a couple of close seconds, but no cigar.
  • Feb 9, 2016 - New Hampshire is next in with Trump easily, as predicted, beating the rest of the field. The surprise of the night was Gov. Kasich coming in a solid 2nd, beating the polls (although they showed him catching up). 4th place Bush survives to fight another day by tying Rubio's disappointing 3rd place finish. Clinton, as expected, not only lost the contest, buy she was not able to improve on the commanding lead Sanders had. If she had been able to do that, Clinton could have salvaged her pride (I still think the final outcome will be a solid Hillary win.)
  • Feb 1, 2016 - First IOWA Votes In: Cruz surprises Trump by winning as does Rubio by virtually tying Trump for 2nd and 3rd. While Clinton probably had a technical win it was Sanders who won the night by essentially coming in a dead-heat with Clinton.
  • Jan 28, 2016 - The Republicans held their last debate before the Iowa caucuses. Donald Trump got pissy and boycotted the debate - boy what a pleasure to watch; they even talked about the issues a little - Winners: Rubio, Paul
  • Dec 16, 2015 - The fourth Republican debate was held this evening; CNN did a great job with this one; moderator Wolf Blitzer (whom I met personally many years ago) kept everybody but Sen Ted Cruz in line. Winners: Trump, but less than before; Rubio; Cruz; Bush, finally; and, imo, Fiorino - Losers: Carson
  • Nov 17, 2015 - Gov. Jindal drops out of the race for the GOP nomination
  • Nov 14, 2015 - The Democratic debate held my attention, barely. Again, the moderators did a credible job of keeping Sanders, Clinton, and O'Malley on track. Even better, they talked about the issues and their solutions.
  • Nov 11, 2015 - This Republican debate was a yawner; no new news. The moderators, for a change, took themselves out of the equation, although I saw the Wall Street Journal moderator get frustrated a couple of times with the candidates non-answers.
  • Nov 2, 2015 - Larry Lessig, the one issue (campaign finance reform) Democratic contender, drops out of the race
  • Oct 28, 2015 - DISASTER! CNBC set Debate moderation by newscasters back to Fox News standards ... or worse by its snarky, insulting style of questioning. Not since the "gotcha questions" from the initial Fox News debate have the moderators been so clearly after the money rather than the issues.
  • Oct 23, 2015 - Senator Lincoln Chafee (D) gives up the ghost today
  • Oct 21, 2015 - Vice President Joe Biden (D) decides not to run for the Democratic presidential nomination
  • Oct 20, 2015 - There are three casualties to the 2016 presidential nomination season; Gov Rick Perry (R), Gov Scott Walker (R), and now Sen Jim Webb (D).
  • Oct 13, 2015 - For a political wonk, the Democratic debate tonight was heads-and-shoulders better than any debate I have seen in the last 40 years! See below for a few comments.
  • Sep 25, 2015 - Is Donald Trump (R?) starting on his slow slide to oblivion? His numbers have started declining
  • Sep 21, 2015 - In a not unsurprising development, Republican Gov Scott Walker concedes defeat and quits the race
  • Sep 20, 2015 - The steady downhill slide of Hillary Clinton seems to have come to a halt. The latest CNN national pool shows her increasing her lead over Bernie Sanders and VP Joe Biden is catching up to Bernie; and he isn't even running. As Sanders peeked?
  • The Sep 16, 2015 debates looked much like the 1st with the exceptions that Carly Fiorina was added to Team 2 and Jim Gilmore was not invited
  • The Aug 6, 2015 debate schedule: Bolded is who I thought did the best; underlined did the worst*
  • --- Team 1: Bobby Jindal; Carly Fiorina; George Pataki; Jim Gilmore; Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry; Rick Santorum - 5 PM EST on Fox
  • --- Team 2: Ben Carson; Chris Christie; Donald Trump; Jeb Bush; John Kasich; Marco Rubio; Mike Huckabee; Rand Paul; Scott Walker; Senator Ted Cruz - 9 PM on Fox
  • * - from an unbiased view; a biased view would have a few more names underlined, but I actually liked what I heard from Fiorina and Kasich (which probably means they will lose)

Demographic Survey #1

Politically Speaking, Do You Find Yourself Agreeing More With ...

  • The Left?
  • The Right?
  • One or the Other, Depending On The Issue?
  • Something Else?
See results without voting

Demographic Survey #2

Are You

  • Female?
  • Male?
See results without voting

The Disappointing 2nd Republican Debate on 9/16/15

WELL, HALF WAS DISAPPOINTING - I RATHER THOUGHT that the 6 PM debate was by-far the better of the two. In fact, in my opinion, it takes the place of what I said was the best debate in years about the 1st debate in the 1st Republican debate in August; last nights debate between Jindal, Pataki, Graham, and Santorum took the prize. It did have the benefit of only 4 people on stage, but it had the best moderators and the more issue oriented questions of the two debates.

Where CNN's format was what helped the so-called "JV" debate, the candidates themselves put the icing on the cake by mainly sticking to the issues and actually answering some of the questions asked. Not so the "varsity-turned-ad hominem" 2nd debate. In that debate, the CNN moderators went out of their way to get candidates to attack each other rather than talk about the issues; and most, but not all of the 11 people on stage took the bait.

I think the winners of the 1st debate were George Pataki and Lindsey Graham (who I expect to do much better in the SC polls now). Not losers were Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal. On the substance. All were issue oriented, accept when the CNN moderators tried to egg them into attacking each other, but it was Pataki and Graham who were the most pragmatic about what can be accomplished as President while Santorum and especially Jindal offered unrealistic, and in the case of Jindal, some times laughable proposals. Bottom line, the 1st debate of the night was well worth watching and should have been longer.

As to the 2nd debate, the main act as it were. Well, can you spell circus - it looks like CNN can because that is what they turned this debate into; I finally had to turn it off. From the get-go Hewitt began pitting one candidate against the other. Now this wouldn't have been so bad if he did it in such a way as to illicit responses about the issues. But no, it was more fun to get the candidates to attack each other personally (although Trump needed no help). Every once in a while candidates like John Kasich and Chris Christie tried to break through and talk about issues; but they were quickly pushed into the background. Carly Fiorina, when offered the chance, also stuck mainly to the issues.

But, once again, Trump led the way, to cover for his lack of knowledge about the issues, started by throwing gratuitous insults around like they were confetti. While the others held there own and returned effective fire, the clown of the circus was still Donald Trump. Nevertheless, this disappointing sideshow did produce a few standouts.

I think Carly Fiorina stood out the most, helped by being the only female of the bunch. But, it was mainly what she said (of which I mostly disagree, but that is not important here) that should start increasing her poll numbers again ... they had been flagging. John Kasich started the night trying to interject substance when he broke in and reminded the moderators the candidates were there to talk about issues, not each other. Besides Kasich and Fiorina, others who I think did better than last time were Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christi. The rest did OK although Ben Carson seemed very weak (unless he picked up after I quick watching).

Out of the whole debate, I think the top five were, in order, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich.

How Did My Esoteric Do in 2012?

PRETTY GOOD ACTUALLY. I WAS PREDICTING AN OBAMA RE-WIN by July 2016 (and was pretty sure of it by Apr 2014); and by about the margin he did win by. (I won't talk about the abysmal job I did for the 2014-Midterms, however.) The reason, I think, that I ended up being a contrarian to the pundits is that I analyzed state-level voting rather than the national polls. When you added up the likely electoral votes, President Obama was never in trouble.

DISCUSSION

THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINING ... up until tonight's first Democratic debate. By comparison, it was a sleeping pill. Why, because they actually talked about real issues and not each other ... AMAZING. Even the moderators stuck to the issues and not personalities; it was a pleasure watching it and I know the viewer come away with a much clearer idea of the Democratic candidates positions on the important issues of the day. This is a major departure from the two Conservative debates.

Winners and Losers? Winners were Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, AND Martin O'Malley. Sadly, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee 1) were basically ignored by the moderators and 2) were distinctly unimpressive when they did have a chance to speak. I suspect these two men may be the next casualties of this nomination cycle.

Hillary Clinton: She made short shrift, with the help of a couple of other candidates, to the email crises. She was very articulate and had opinions on a variety of policies.

Bernie Sanders: Also very articulate but his scope was much more limited when compared to Clinton or O'Malley. You could easily tell how his socialist views colors his politics, BUT he did not come across as a socialist.

Martin O'Malley: He came prepared for bear and he got what he came for .. relevancy! Like the rest he talked about issues, and not the others. He did a great job of trying to define himself as being different from Clinton. But, like Sanders and unlike Clinton, he became repetitive on many of his talking points.

In my opinion Hillary Clinton came out on top while Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley tied for second. Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee tied for 6th (yes, I know there were only five on the stage, but they were that bad!)

The Final Two Democratic Presidential Candidates

Click thumbnail to view full-size
FORMER SENATOR AND FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON APRIL 12, 2015SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON APRIL 15, 2015
FORMER SENATOR AND FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON APRIL 12, 2015
FORMER SENATOR AND FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON APRIL 12, 2015 | Source
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON APRIL 15, 2015
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON APRIL 15, 2015 | Source

Who Will Win the Democratic Nomination?

TO START THIS 19 MONTH LONG HUB, IT WOULD BE, AGAIN, INTERESTING to know who you think will win each Party's presidential nomination. Let's start with the Democrats, it is easier. From where I sit, it's going to be Hillary Clinton; I just don't see another Obama on the horizon. (Then again, I didn't see one in 2008, either)

So, below is a poll with the list of Democratic candidates thought to be interested in the nomination, at the moment. I have been running this survey since the 2014 mid-term elections and it has 31 responses for the Democrats. I will keep that list and add any other names which might be of interest.

Presidential Nomination Run Announcements

  1. Hillary Clinton announced on Sunday, April 12, 2015
  2. Bernie Sanders announced on April 26, 2015
  3. Martin O'Malley, former MD Governor - May 30, 2015 - Feb 1, 2016
  4. Lincoln Chafee, former Senator from RI - Jun 3, 2015 - Oct 23, 2015
  5. Jim Webb, former VA Governor - Jul 3, 2015 - Oct 20, 2015
  6. Larry Lessig, law professor - Sep 6, 2015 - Nov 2, 2015

Last Republican Republican Standing !

Click thumbnail to view full-size
BUSINESSMAN DONALD TRUMP ANNOUNCED JUNE 16, 2015
BUSINESSMAN DONALD TRUMP ANNOUNCED JUNE 16, 2015
BUSINESSMAN DONALD TRUMP ANNOUNCED JUNE 16, 2015 | Source

Who Will Win the Republican Nomination? - The Answer is DONALD TRUMP

LIKE IN 2012, THE REPUBLICAN FIELD IS WIDE OPEN WITH NO front-runners. In my opinion, Jeb Bush is the only Republican in the following list that has a chance of beating Hillary Clinton. But, for the same reason, President Obama handily won both his elections, the Republicans will probably not pick a moderate Republican, which even given the conservative credentials Bush has, I think he qualifies for.

If he does win, it will be because, like Mitt Romney, he ran far to the Right in order to win the nomination. And if that happens, I don't think any Republican will be able to beat Clinton.

Presidential Nomination Run Announcements

  1. Ted Cruz - Senator from TX - March 23, 2015 - May 3, 20106
  2. Rand Paul - Senator from KY - March 31, 2015 - Feb 3, 2016
  3. Marco Rubio - Senator from FL - April 13, 2015 - March 15, 2016
  4. Dr. Ben Carson, Neurosurgeon - May 4, 2015 - Mar 2, 2016
  5. Caroline Fiorina, Business Woman - May 4, 2015 - Feb 10, 2016
  6. Mike Huckabee, former AR Governor, - May 5, 2015 - Feb 1, 2016
  7. Rick Santorum, former Senator from PA - May 27, 2015 - Feb 3, 2016
  8. George Pataki, former NY Governor - May 28, 2015 - Dec 29, 2015
  9. Lindsey Graham, Senator from SC - June 1, 2015 - Dec 21, 2015
  10. Rick Perry, former TX Governor - June 4, 2015 - Sept 11, 2015
  11. Jeb Bush, former FL Governor - June 15, 2015 - Feb 20, 2016
  12. Donald Trump, Business Man - June 16, 2015
  13. Bobby Jindal, LA Governor - Jun 24, 2015 - Nov 17, 2015
  14. Chris Christie, NJ Governor - Jun 30, 2015 - Feb 10, 2016
  15. Scott Walker, WI Governor - Jul 13, 2015 - Sep 21, 2015
  16. John Kasich, OH Governor - Jul 21, 2015 - May 4, 2016
  17. Jim Gilmore, former VA Governor - Jul 30, 2015 - Feb 11, 2016

Political Casualties

  • Gov. Rick Perry (R) - Quit Sep 11, 2015
  • Gov. Scott Walker (R) - Quit Sep 21, 2015
  • Gov. Jim Webb (D) - Quit Oct 20, 2015
  • Sen. Lincoln Chafee (D) - Quit Oct 23, 2015
  • Prof. Larry Lessig (D) - Quit Nov 2, 2015
  • Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) - Quit Nov 17, 2015
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) - Quit Dec 21, 2015
  • Gov. George Pataki (R) - Quit Dec 29, 2015
  • Gov. Huckabee (R) - Quit Feb 1, 2016
  • Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) - Quit Feb 1, 2016
  • Sen. Rand Paul (R) - Quit Feb 1, 2016
  • Sen. Rick Santorum (R) - Quit Feb 3, 2016
  • Gov. Chris Christi (R) - Quit Feb 10, 2016
  • Carly Fiorina (R) - Quit Feb 10, 2016
  • Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) - Quit Feb 11, 2016
  • Gov. Jeb Bush (R) - Quit Feb 20, 2016
  • Dr Ben Carson (R) - Quit Mar 2, 2016
  • Sen Marco Rubio (R) - Quit Mar 15, 2016
  • Sen Ted Cruz (R) - Quit May 3, 2016
  • Gov John Kasich (R) - Quit May 4, 2016

"the Donald" Trump & Gov. Pence

BELOW ARE THE MOST RECENT INCARNATIONS OF DONALD TRUMP's position on various issues. I say "most recent" because many have changed drastically over the years. Most of what can be said about his positions must be derived from his infamous quotes as, at this point in time, Trump has made very few policy statements.

ABORTION: This is one which has come 180 degrees since 1999, but nevertheless is not as restrictive as some of his opponents.

  1. 1999 - Favors the right to choose
  2. 2015 - Opposes right to choose except for rape, incest, or mother's health

CIVIL RIGHTS: His most controversial statements are in this arena

  1. 1999 - Tolerate diversity, prosecute hate crimes
  2. 2011 - No gay marriage, no same-sex marriage benefits
  3. 2015 - Let the states decide on gay marriage
  4. Seems to have little tolerance for minorities
  5. Dismissive and patronizing of women

CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Trump seems to be consistent on this issue

  1. Approves of capital punishment because it deters crime
  2. Thinks violent TV and video games lead kids astray
  3. Make judges accountable for their sentences
  4. Wants strong anti-crime policies

EDUCATION: Trump seems to be consistent on this issue as well

  1. Common Core is a disaster
  2. Wants to severely reduce, but not eliminate, the Department of Education
  3. Favors school choice

DRUGS: The Donald as a libertarian streak here.

  1. Legalize all drugs and tax them in order to fund drug education
  2. Claims he doesn't drink (alcohol or coffee), smoke, or use drugs

ENERGY: Takes the generally conservative line and has been consistent over time

  1. Climate change is a hoax.
  2. No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country's lifeblood

FOREIGN POLICY AND FREE-TRADE:

  1. Opposes Iran nuclear deal
  2. More sanctions on Iran and more support for Israel
  3. China is the enemy and is very critical of US soft-ball approach
  4. 2000 - Support Russia, but with strings attached
  5. We are losing to Mexico, Japan, and China on trade - very critical on US ability to negotiate
  6. Opposes longstanding assumption underlying U.S. foreign policy; which is supporting allies financially, diplomatically and militarily will promote a global system of free trade, democracy, and stability.
  7. Use economic warfare to halt China's territorial moves in the South China Sea
  8. Would consider letting South Korea and Japan acquire their own atomic arsenal.
  9. Would boycott Saudi Arabian oil if the kingdom doesn't send ground troops to fight ISIS
  10. Thinks NATO (and similar alliances) is an anachronism.
  11. Would renegotiate bedrock free trade deals.

ECONOMY AND BUDGET:

  1. Cut taxes on wealthy to 25% - Pense wants flat tax
  2. Increase spending to Rebuild American infrastructure
  3. Impose 35% tariff on Mexican goods
  4. Impose 20% on all imported goods
  5. 0% tax on corporations would be a good thing; but is wanting a 15% rate
  6. 2008 - Embrace globalization and international markets
  7. 2000 - Predicted the Great Recession of 2008
  8. 1999 - President should be nation's trade representative
  9. 1999 - A 14.35%, one time tax on wealth would eliminate the national debt
  10. 1987 - Opposes rent controls
  11. Repeal "Carried Interest" IRS tax loophole for hedge fund managers

SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE:

  1. TRUMP does not want to change them where PENCE would like to Privatize it.

Secretary Hillary Clinton

HILLARY CLINTON HAS STARTED STATING HER POSITION on a variety of issues; while, at the same time fending off a scandal or two such as e-mail. Many positions are standard fare for a moderate-progressive Democrat, but some are new on the scene.

POSITIONS:

HIGHER EDUCATION: In a nod to the fact that the cost and poor-state of American education is hurting our competitiveness and national security, Clinton wants to institute a sea change in funding higher education. The plan has several parts, depending on the learning institution:

  1. Provide federal incentive grants to states to guarantee students will not have to take out a loan to afford tuition at four-year public colleges and universities (that, folks, is not tuition-free, as some say she is advocating). To qualify, students will have to work 10 hours a week where those those earnings, plus a "realistic" contribution from their families, will cover their tuition bill
  2. Tuition at community colleges will be free to students or their families.
  3. Broader use of Pell Grants
  4. Cut interest rates on student loans with an "income-based" repayment option
  5. COST: An average of $35 billion per year which will be paid for by limiting tax benefits for high-income Americans.

TAXES:

  1. Increase the capital gains tax rate on the wealthy if they sell investments within less than six years of purchasing them. Close "loopholes and expenditures for the most fortunate."
  2. Create a $1,500 tax credit for businesses that hire apprentices. Protect workers' collective bargaining rights.
  3. Provide a tax credit to employers contributing to workers' profit-sharing plan.

JOBS:

  1. Invest in $275 billion in infrastructure and scientific research.
  2. Create a national infrastructure bank, initially funded by Congress, that would make loans for projects like improving highways, bridges and broadband service. The loans would be matched by private sector investments or local governments.
  3. Raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour and support states and localities to increase their rate even higher.

FAMILY:

  1. Supports paid family leave and sick leave.
  2. Expand childcare access to help working parents, especially women. This could double growth.

HEALTH CARE:

  1. Lower out-of-pocket costs by allowing families to see the doctor three times a year without having to meet their deductible first.
  2. Create a $5,000 tax credit for families with high medical expenses.
  3. Lower drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies.

How Is President Obama Doing?

CONVENTIONAL WISDOM SAYS THAT THE BETTER A PRESIDENT IS DOING right before an election, the better the chance the candidate from his or her Party has of getting to the Oval Office. Let's consider the following indicators.

Overall National Job Approval: President Obama has had upside down approval ratings throughout most of his eight years in office. When Obama was inaugurated January 2009, his "job approval" was 65% favorable and 20% unfavorable; and then GOP propaganda against him began. It had the desired effect and by the end of Apr 2009 his job approval rating now equaled his unfavorable rating. Obama's ratings kept reversing periodically until May 2013 when it went negative and stayed there until Mar 2016; almost three years in length.

But, from then on until Sep 7, 2016 President Obama's has remained positive and is approving, currently standing at 50% For and 46% Against.

National Favorability Rating: President Obama's Favorability rating hit its peak in Feb 2009 at 68% Favorable and 21% Unfavorable. This rating also followed the same up and down movements until Nov 2015 when it stood at 47% to 47% and began to steadily improve.

President Obama's Favorability rating stands, on Sep 7, 2016, at 52% Approve and 44% Disapprove.

Health Care Approval Rating: This was what President Obama wanted to be the big achievement of his presidency; for various reasons, from self-inflicted wounds to one of the most well-funded, sustained propaganda campaigns to stop Obamacare from being a success - it hasn't worked out that way. After starting out with a 48% - 18% Approval rating, it quickly reversed course and fell to a low of 38% - 54% Unfavorable by Dec 2013. (It must be noted that about 1/2 of that 54% disapproval are liberals who think Obamacare didn't go far enough. Since then, while total opposed still exceeds total approve. the gap has closed significantly.

As of Sep 7, 2015, rating is 45% Approve and 49% Disapprove; quite a comeback given the headwinds Obamacare faces.

Economic Job Approval: Of the group, this is probably the most important since it combines how people feel about the President, but how well he has handled the economy. President Obama has been battling a heavy propaganda campaign, a completely dysfunctional Congress, and the slow recovery that would be expected under those conditions. As might be expected, Obama's approval rating in this category sunk to a low, only exceeded by President Bush; by Sept 2011, 34% Approve and 60% Disapprove. It took Obama until Mar 2015 to get into striking distance with a 45% to 49% negative rating. Obama finally goes positive in Jun 2016,

By Sep 7, 2016, Obama's economic approval rating improved to 48% Approve and 45% Disapprove.

President Obama's Approval among Independents: I would think this is as important as the Economic Job Approval rating because it is the Independents who will determine the winner. Since Independents historically lean to the Right in America, it is very important to be popular in the group. Obama spent most of his first term with about an 11-point negative gap. That quickly deteriorated to a 28-point negative gap by Nov 2013. This terrible position has slowly improved until today.

On Sep 7, 2016, President Obama has narrowed the gap to 5-points, 44% to 49%. This is all the more surprising in that most who identify as Independents actually lean to the Right.

In summary, it definitely is looking up for Hillary Clinton AND the Democrats in general, simply based on how well President Obama is doing, especially compared to his history of poor ratings.

Other Interesting Indicators

Other interesting indicators are (7/20/16):

  • Favorability Ratings:
  • -- Democrats: 45% - 46% (Undecided - 9%) - Bad News for Republicans
  • -- Republicans: 33% - 57% (Undecided - 10%) - More Bad News for Republicans
  • -- Trump: 34% - 61% (Undecided - 5%)
  • -- Clinton: 39% - 56% (Undecided - 7%)

It seems the only candidate, or Party, which the public likes is Senator Bernie Sanders, a feeling which I agree with, although I a Hillary fan. Further, and more important, Trump has a much worse unfavorable rating than Clinton, and worse for both, most everybody has made up their mind (once an personal opinion forms, it is hard to change and when it changes, it does so slowly).

FAST FORWARD::

  • Favorability Ratings (17Oct 2016):
  • -- Democrats: 43% - 47% (Undecided - 10%) - steady
  • -- Republicans: 29% - 58% (Undecided - 13%) - worse
  • -- Trump: 33% - 63% (Undecided - 4%) - worse
  • -- Clinton: 43% - 53% (Undecided - 4%) - much better
  • -- Obama Job Approval: Independents Nov 2015 36% -57%; Oct 7, 2016 44% - 51% - steady
  • -- Obama Overall Favorable Rating: 53% Approve - 41% Disapprove - better
  • NEW - 2016 Generic Congressional Vote: Ds Up by 5 points (RealClearPolitics) - Rs lost their advantage in Oct 2015 and have been steadily losing ground since then.

Of note is that the trend is disliking Trump more and not disliking Clinton any less with the caveat that these numbers are pretty solid in that most people have seemed to have made up their minds. Also trending against the Republicans is the Democratic Party getting less disliked while the GOP is getting more disliked; that may have a decided impact on the control of the House..

All-in-all, this is good news for the Democrats.

Watching the Polls

THE SERIES OF CHARTS TO FOLLOW are composites of information drawn from the Huffington Post Pollster and Real Clear Politics. For now, only two genre of polls will be considered, Obama's Job Approval ratings (including Obamacare) and Match-up polls between theoretical Democratic and Republican nominees. The latter set are included for obvious reasons while Obama's ratings provide an indication of the strength or weakness of the Democratic brand at the Presidential level; the assumption being that the more popular Obama is, especially against the hurricane force headwinds created by the opposition, the more chance the Democratic nominee will have of winning.

The charts present an exponential smoothing technique of 65% for the most recent months data and 35% for all of the rest. This method is used to give more weight to current thinking and less weight to historical data. As we get into 2016, the weighting will change to 75%/25% given people are more attuned to what is happening as the election gets nearer.

2016 Presidential Primary Exit Polls

FROM SURVEYING THE VARIOUS EXIT POLL THROUGH THE MARCH 8 primaries, a few demographics emerged that were common across the states. Assuming the Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are their respective Party's nominees, these trends are to Trump's disadvantage.

Women: If any one thing that will sink Donald Trump, it is the female vote; even more than the minority vote, I suspect.

  • In her battles with Bernie Sanders, women consistently supported Clinton over Sanders, the opposite was true for men, but not to the same degree.
  • Women, however, far outnumbered men in the Democratic primaries.
  • Overall Trump did terrible with Republican women; with a couple of exceptions, they heavily favored the other candidates
  • The killer for Trump in this category is that in the Democratic primaries, women far outnumbered the men in voting. On the other hand, in the GOP it was the men who slightly outnumbered the women.
  • Bottom line is if this trend holds, Clinton will pick up many more women's votes than Trump
  • - Point Clinton

Education: There were distinct differences here as well.

  • Clinton's general strength was with people who had no college degree or had post-graduate ones.
  • Bernie, however, had a solid lock on voters with some college or bachelor degrees
  • Trump's strong suit are voters with high school degrees or less. As you move up the education spectrum, Trump supporters decline.
  • Interestingly, Clinton challenges Trump somewhat for those who have a high school degree or less while dominating with those who have more education
  • Bad news for Trump is that the top three educational levels generally have a higher turn-out than those with the least education
  • - Point Clinton

Income: Once again, there are some differences

  • Clinton does well with the lowest income earners as well as the top earners, Bernie has the middle ground
  • Trump does slightly better with those making less than $50k
  • Those earning more than $50K vote much more frequently than those that don't
  • Push

Race: Along with women, minorities will make the difference, depending on whether they vote or not. Clinton has a massive advantage over Trump when it comes to minorities while whites strongly favor Trump, but they are declining in magnitude - Point: Clinton

Age: Again, the trends are distinct. The older population will vote for Clinton, the younger group should favor Trump. In Clinton's favor is the older you are, the more likely it is you will vote. Point: Clinton

The one certainty from the exit polls are:

  • If you are white, male, chances are you will vote for Trump
  • If you are minority, female, chances are even higher you will vote for Clinton
  • If you are a female, you are more likely to vote, and vote for Clinton

Let alone the deficit that Trump has with the initial electoral count, he also has a major uphill battle to win the popular vote.

© 2015 My Esoteric

More by this Author


99 comments

JayeWisdom profile image

JayeWisdom 20 months ago from Deep South, USA

You must have copied and pasted the question for the Republican section of the poll because it too says "Democratic." (Just a little typo, but a big difference!

Question: Why didn't you include Elizabeth Warren in the list of potential Democratic candidates? Even though Warren gives the impression she doesn't plan to run for president in 2016, recent polls in key states showed her ahead of Hillary Clinton. She has a huge base of supporters, and I think she'd make a superb president. I sincerely hope she can be convinced to throw her hat in the ring.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 20 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for catching that, Jaye, yes it was a copy and paste, but I guess changing it went no further than thinking about it.

I left Warren, and some others that were on the previous list, off this list because of her oft repeated desire not to run. (I probably should have left Colin Powell of the Republican list for the same reason, but he is my personal favorite.)

While not the reason I left her off, and I do like most of the things Warren stands for, she is a bit too far Left, in my view, to be a slam dunk winner over the Republican field (save for Jeb, I think he would beat her). Her nomination would put many on the other side in play. Would she make a good VP, maybe, but America is barely ready for a female president, let alone a duo; and I think it essential for America to have a female president, especially one as talented as Hillary is.

Obama paved the way for racial minorities, Hillary needs to pave the way for female majorities. (It is ironic that the same hate machine which plagued Obama won't have to miss a beat when they turn their malignant attention to Hillary.)


Larry Rankin profile image

Larry Rankin 20 months ago from Oklahoma

Great overview.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 20 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 13 months ago from Ohio, USA

Cruz simply does not photograph well, does he?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

LOL, no he doesn't.

I do have to hand it to CNBC in corralling a bunch of cats and getting them to talk about issues and offer solutions, such as they were.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 9 months ago from Florida

Excellent effort, and considerable amount of information. However, I think you greatly under-estimate or just can't quantify the anti-establishment feel to this election, and the shift in voter interests from topics that had been a staple in recent years (IE - abortion) to the more basic Job, economy, education issues that are driving the voters.

The reality is Obama is/was far more popular than Hillary, and he barely defeated Romney. Four years down the road, and things really haven't improved any, Obamacare is costing most people more not less, people have lose their insurance because of it... wages have declined... good paying jobs are scarce in most regions of the country.

Hillary is the least likely candidate to win, regardless of who opposes her, that fact will become apparent as time goes on.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 9 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Again, thanks for reading and commenting Ken.

I am not sure of your estimate of how well Romney did given he only received 38% of the electoral vote, that is not close in my book. Nor is being number 24 out of 47 elections where the difference in popular vote was measured (he was 19th over McCain). No, I think PBO did just fine.

When you say ACA is costing more not less; "not more" relative to what? That is a meaningless slogan used by the Right since there is no estimated comparative measure if ACA had not been implemented. I am surprised the Right hasn't made hay out of the fact the uninsured who are now insured are paying orders of magnitude more (of course everyone else is paying less because these people are not getting free emergency room care and are becoming healthier as well because of preventative care they can now obtain).

You are right, wages did decline ... under Bush, now they are headed back up. Why are good paying jobs scare, because those that own corporate America keep all of the money and didn't have to pay higher wages thanks to the Bush years leaving 20 people for every job available. PBO fixed that.

You are right as well in that Obama was and is more popular than Hillary ... and Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Carson and Rubio. You are correct also, relative to the Republicans regarding anti-establishment feeling. That also translates, on the Democratic side, to the young women and men, the same ones who led Obama to victory, and far-Left progressives.

But keep in mind the demographics between Ds and Rs in presidential politics. The Rs main (almost only) constituency are older and middle-aged white men, older white women, and Cuban Americans. Fortunately for the Rs, it is just this cohort that comes out to vote in large numbers.

Unfortunately, again in presidential elections, that is not enough to overcome the advantage the Ds have in all minorities (except Cuban Americans) as well as the young and middle aged white men (not from the South and West) and women. About 25 states go Red and the other 25 Blue. Even so, the advantage goes to the Ds because most of the 25 Blue states have large electoral college numbers compared to the Rs 25.

That is why I am pretty certain the Ds will win the WH this time and far into the future.


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 7 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

I applaud your efforts compiling this magnificent mountain of information. Phenomenal.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 7 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you, Sgt Prepper, I appreciate it. I am what you call a political junky.


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 7 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

My, I used to be a political junky for about three decades as a GOP Ward Party Committeeman, elected City Constable and a candidate for State Assembly, School Board & Alderman. In 2009 I came to the realization BOTH the Democrats & the Republicans are reading from the exact same script for the New World Order. We are very unlikely to stop them. It is just like TV-wrestling as they already know who will play the villain and who will win the bout/election. www.threeworldwars.com


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 7 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You were definitely in the middle of it for sure. I do have to disagree with you on the Boss type party machinery. While there is no doubt parties would like to return to the good old days, there are many roadblocks in their way today, especially at the presidential level.

Obama is proof of it on the Democratic side and Trump/Cruz on the GOP side. In both cases, the party elite don't want any of them but they got Obama and they are going to get either Trump or Cruz.

Same, same, to some extent, for down ballot as well.


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 7 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

What is so absolutely crazy is Bernie Sanders gave up his dual-citizenship w/Israel to run for President and be able to say "I am not a dual-citizen with Israel." I have located two pre-2014 magazine articles listing American politicians who have Israeli dual-citizenship and sanders is listed in both of them along with Joe Lieberman, Michael Bloomberg, Rahm Emanuel, Al Franken, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer & Diane Feinstein. Should Ted Cruz become our president he will be the first U.S. President born since the ratification of our Constitution "In the Year of Our Lord" 1787 who openly admits he was born in another country to a father who was a foreigner. Talk about audacity Cruz hasn't even attempted to lie about his birthplace and citizenship issues. Perhaps Donald Trump can prompt HIM to produce a forged long-form Birth Certificate?

I have pretty much given up on politics and am keeping busy sounding the alarm that Kenyan-born Obama is the Antichrist & Jesuit Pope Francis is the False Prophet.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 7 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I am not sure what your hang-up is with dual citizenship, millions of Americans have it, a lot don't even know they are duel citizens. From where I stand, I don't care for I can't see where it makes any difference.

BTW, being a dual citizen does not necessarily mean that you were actually born outside of America.

Turns out, btw, the list you refer to is bogus and has been floating around the internet for a decade. Also, Sanders never was an Israel citizen. Being born there of American citizens does not confer citizenship in Israel, as it turns out.


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 7 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

As for Israeli dual-citizenship it is called "The Law of Return" and allows Jews, like Sanders, to vote in Israel and live there. A "natural born" U.S. citizen is born on U.S. soil to parents who were BOTH Americans at the time.

FYI - Pope Francis was born to 100% Italian parents who were both Italian citizens when he was born in Argentina. His DNA is pure Italian.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 7 months ago from Ohio, USA

Pepper, take a chill pill. The citizenship of parents has nothing to do with the DNA of the child. Good grief. How does one judge "100 % Italian "? Is there an exam?


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 7 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

Like most popes this child-trafficking Luciferian Jesuit is Italian and NOT of some native South American ancestry. He almostly certainly has mafioso and/or Cosa Nostra ties.

FYI - the grade school BHO attended as little Moslem Barry Soetoro in Indonesia was coincidently(?) called Saint Francis and was founded by the evil Jesuits. They have their own pope called "The Black Pope" and consider him their General. Their founder, Ignatius of Loyola, was the model for Dumas' character the Count of Monte Cristo. Which also mirrored Lucifer.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 7 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You sure have it in for religion, don't you, lol.

Also, the Law of Return must be applied for and Sanders never has.


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 7 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

#1-How would anybody know if Sanders applied.

#2-Why did at least two different magazines report Sanders was a dual-citizen pre-2014 and not be charged with libel?

#3-Yes I definitely do have it in for "religion" but advocate faith in God through His only begotten-son Jesus.

#4-Many of us recognize the evil-forces which have infiltrated our public schools, universities, mass-media and congress.

#5-The New World Order is now almost complete and will culminate with the Mark of the Beast.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 7 months ago from Ohio, USA

@Prepper, The New Aluminum Foil hats are here for Spring. Keep those pesky thought-control waves from controlling your thoughts. The Government is watching! And the Pope. And Bruce Jenner. And sometimes Donald Trump when he isn't too busy running his puppet regime in The Falklands.


Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 7 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

nic, I am just the messenger here. You don't have to bite my head off. I am trying to help you people pull your heads out of the sand and open your eyes to what is happening. Kenyan-born Obama IS The Antichrist & Jesuit Pope Francis is his False Prophet. I can't help it God sent me on this mission to sound the alarm. Get ready physically and spiritually!

www.threeworldwars.com

Ephesians 6:12


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 7 months ago from Orange County California

While Mr. Esoteric might have done well in 2012, the country continued its decline. Not only in the running of the government, but the minorities running the government. The US has been emasculated, and impotent at home and in the world. The radicals, and the abnormal are gaining on becoming the new normal, at the expense of losing the country we used to call the United States. Today it a a Nation divided on politics, immigration, gender, color and none of it makes the US united. When you put xxxx in front of American, you take American out of the US. You have Illegal Immigrants flying the flag of their country in the middle of Los Angeles, and burning our flag. We are taking care of over 10% of the people of Mexico in the US. We are opening the US to unvetted foreigners, that want the US to be their surrogate home, and don't want to adapt to being an American.

The list goes on, but you went deaf three words into my comment.

Your opinions are frightening, disturbing, and unAmerican.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 6 months ago from Florida

As you can see, my initial post to this Hub was spot on (the first part of it), and I can see in your reply (My Esoteric) that you feel confident in the 'official' information about wages going up, unemployment going down, etc. and that will lead to a favorable outcome for Hillary come November.

And I would agree with you, if those 'official' numbers where close to reality, but they are not. We have a 100 million households without one member holding a fulltime (living wage) job. Wages have not increased relative to the value of the dollar and what it can buy, and the rise in taxes and cost of living. These are the truths that no matter how much the media or Washington puts spin on it, people are living with every day.

Trump will win the Nomination, and the Presidency, because he is the candidate tapping into this, and into the fear people have about the direction things have been going.

Whether you agree or disagree with Obama's favorable outlook on Islam and how he's worked to incorporate it into our country, whether you agree or not with his allowing the southern border to be open to anyone crossing it... the fact is he has done these things, and so much more, will have an impact not just on our society, but our economy.

Trump, for whatever flaws you attribute to him, is a clear opposite of Obama, Trump is an America first type of guy, a Nationalist not Globalist, an International businessman and a billionaire who can't be bought off like all current politicians who are owned by their backers... and who do not represent the people, but rather the ones putting millions into their bank accounts.

More and more Americans are waking up to the reality, for 25 years now it hasn't mattered who was in the White House or who ran the Senate... they keep passing one anti-American law and trade agreement after another... jobs are fleeing to other countries, wages are going down, and taxes are going up.

People are voting against those things more than they are voting for Trump, Trump is merely giving voice to their frustrations, concerns, and he is a true outsider... he made his millions, billions actually, outside of Washington, rather than through it.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

"People are voting against those things more than they are voting for Trump, "

Spot on. Trump is a buffoon but he's their buffoon. Good grief, anyone over 40 should know the sleazy history of The House of Clinton because they lived through it. Anyone over 18 who doesn't spend 12 hours a day playing Call of Duty should be well aware that Hillary is under investigation by the FBI.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the post nicomp, but actually, HRC is NOT under investigation by the FBI and never has been; that is an extremist myth. What in fact is being investigated is IF her computer EVER contained material that was classified at the time it was on the computer while in her possession.

That is a far cry from investigating whether HRC broke the law by having the computer in the first place or by intentionally storing classified material on her server.

As to the "House of Clinton" snark, personally I begin my indignation once a politician "Exceeds the norm" among all politicians regarding sleaziness and IMO the House of Clinton doesn't even come close.

The House of Clinton is no different than the House of Bush or the House of Reagan.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Brad, so long as there are people who continue to claim "All men are created equal" was a mistake, then we will continue to be a divided country because there are many more people who believe and will fight for the FULL meaning that Jefferson had in mind when he wrote those words.

The fact that you used the word "abnormal" to refer to a class of human beings firmly puts you in the camp that needs to be defeated.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you as well for your comment, Ken.

As soon as you put "We have a 100 million households without one member holding a fulltime (living wage) job" in relative terms (percentages) and then compare the result to history, then I can take your "evidence" as reliable. BTW, full time does not equate to living wage. In this country, it takes 1.5 to 2 full time jobs to earn a living wage for about 50% of Americans.

As to "official numbers", what do you have that is comparable and more accurate?

Trump is a Trump-first kind of guy and is stepping all over America to reach his megalomaniacal goals. It is sad you can't see that. It is also sad that you think bullying the world into submission is the only way to achieve foreign policy objects that further America's interests. As Bush found, the world pushed back hard against his needlessly aggressive actions and, as a consequence, diminished America in world influence; a state of affairs that, along with a devastated economy, Obama had to repair.

You are so right, Obama (and HRC), thank God, is the opposite of Trump. Do you really want Trump to make America his 4th bankrupt notch on his belt?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

" HRC is NOT under investigation by the FBI and never has been; that is an extremist myth."

Oh

my

goodness.

As Daniel Moynihan, one of your patron saints I suspect, once said "you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts."

I assume this mythical investigation in which everyone believes but you is simply a Vast Right Wing conspiracy, yes?

Help me understand: the FBI is investigating Hillary's computer (and her phone and her other phone) but not Hillary? Ergo, the FBI investigated Lee Oswald's rifle but not Lee Oswald, right?

Wow.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Show me the proof that HRC herself is under investigation, and not the opinion of Right-wing media. Here are the actual facts: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ken, here is why Trump can't win in November.

1. Most women won't vote for Trump: 73% of all women voters view him Negatively; 34% of Rebulican female voters view him Negatively

2. Most blacks won't vote for Trump, no proof needed

3. Most Hispanics won't vote for Trump, no proof needed

4. 31% of women and 21% of whites (registered voters) will be Very Upset if Trump wins

5. While 9% of women and 10% of whites will be Very Upset if Clinton wins

6. 21% of those under 55 and 22% of those 55 and older will be Very Upset if Trump wins.

7. While 14% of those under 55 and 5% of those 55 and over will be Very Upset if Clinton wins.

8. 21% of Republicans score high on the RWA survey suggesting they are easily swayed by authority figures, especially if one is a high scoring Social Dominator like Trump is; that is where most of his support lies. The remaining 79% of Republicans and 96% of Democrats who score low on the RWA survey tend to think for themselves; those are generally your Sanders (in case of Ds) and Clinton (Ds, Rs, and Is) supporters.

Trump may not lose by a landslide, too many deep Red states for that, but his loss is going to be Uuge.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 6 months ago from Florida

@ esoteric

I have no faith in these percentages people find, be they from a Pollster or a Propaganda machine like Fox or the NYTimes.

What I do have SOME faith in, is vote counts. For instance how many people voted for Trump in Florida VS for Hillary, in the Primaries.

Then I take into account Trump was running against Rubio (FL his home state), and Cruz, and that Florida has a very long absentee voter allowance which meant votes had been cast weeks in advance for people who had still been running, like Bush.

And yet, the votes for Trump were equal to the votes for Hillary, who was running against only Bernie.

Another factor about Florida is that Independents are not allowed to vote in the primary elections, however there is clear evidence from other states where they are, that a clear majority of Independents are voting in direct opposition of the 'establishment' and 'Washington elite'... and if there is any politician that is a poster child for the Washington establishment AKA Washington elite, it's Hillary.

When I do a similar break down of trends of voting in Ohio and PA, there is even more evidence that Trump will do better than Hillary, than in Florida.

So it is very likely that Trump could win Ohio, Florida, and PA. These are the states that typically decide who becomes President, and right now they are already leaning towards Trump, and don't need much more to occur in his favor to go in that direction.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Be that as it may, since working with the kind of data you have no faith in was my career for 25 years; I have a good sense of how to understand what it says and what it means.

That said, I don't totally rely on those kinds statistics and demographics. I try to keep in mind the psychology of the American voter; and that is what is going to kill Trump in the end.

How many blacks are in Florida, how many Hispanics? How many other minorities which generally vote Democratic?

- I'll tell you, 40% and Trump is likely to pick up only 10% of those votes. - Trump might get 35% of the female vote (if he doesn't piss them off more than he has already), which is 51% of the population and votes at higher rates than men.

- Trump has done something that no other GOP candidate in history has done - drive up Hispanic registration and consequently voter turn-out. In the past, the GOP could count on not that many Hispanics voting; Trump changed that dynamic

- Trump's vocal hatred of Hispanics may have even put solid GOP states like Texas an Arizona into play.

- The high black population in the Southern states is also problematic for Trump in that he does not have a lock on the white vote, especially former Cruz supporters who just might sit things out.

- To win PA, he has to neutralize Clinton in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. While the state as a whole has only 20% minority, Philadelphia is 68% and Pittsburgh is 34% and weighted toward women

- Likewise, OH is only 19% minority, but Cleveland is 69% with lots of extra females, Cincinnati has 50% minorities and biased toward female; and finally Columbus, it is 41%

Plus PA, OH, and FL went for Obama ... twice! Hillary is white and a female. The tea leaves tell me Trump is going to go down hard. (BTW, don't pay real attention to polls until August unless you know how to parse them.)


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 6 months ago from Florida

@ My Esoteric

Well I think your are pinning hopes that a majority of women and Hispanics will vote against him, that's what the media says, but I'm not so sure its that severe... if their only alternate option is Hillary I don't believe they will be inspired.

If it was Trump vs Obama, that is a different thing entirely, but that is not the case.

Look, I'm not all that convinced about how it will pan out, but I think Hillary is a much weaker candidate now than she was in 2008. In 2008 she would have beat McCain, now, after her stint as Secretary of State, and after 8 years of Obama and twenty years of lowering wages and increased unemployment (and if you don't believe that go watch the movie 'Inequality for All'... which best sums up our current economic situation and why we are in it.) I don't think Hillary has a real shot to beat anyone, for anything... as seen by how many support Bernie, despite all the effort the Party has put in to selling Clinton to them.

One of the things I have mentioned consistently, but not consistently enough, is how the biggest problem we face is NOT liberal or conservative, not Democrat or Republican, it is the corruption in Washington. It is the establishment. It is the fact that our politicians no longer serve America's best interests or the people of America.

The Politicians serve the corporations, Wall St., and the billionaires that push them to pass more laws that strip away our freedoms, our rights, they are complicit in the causes of divisiveness and struggle in our society today.

When we point fingers and blame one another, when we hold to some 'liberal' ideal or feel that any Republican seen is an enemy, when we blame a race or a religion for our woes, we are playing into their hands... we are not focusing on the true cause of our Nation's ills, a corrupt and condescending group of elites that control Congress and the halls of the White House.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 6 months ago from Orange County California

Ken

I agree with you. Also, we have only 1 Congress and when they lose by not solving a problem, or creating more of a problem, we all lose. It doesn't matter which party team failed us and congress, we lose. The search for the guilty doesn't turn a loss into a victory.

Too many people treat their political party as if it were their local sports team. It is isn't, and congressional gridlock is not a sport, it is a failure of the federal government. And only the voters can change it by not electing the politicians that are the ring leaders of the gridlock.

Neither party has shown they have the solutions, but both parties have contributed to the problems. It is verified, in US history. The 1950s were the peak for the US, it has been downhill since then.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

"The 1950s were the peak for the US, it has been downhill since then."

Yes, I really enjoyed my smartphone, Internet, and fuel-injected car in 1959. The heart transplants were soooooooo much better.

Although, it is true that LBJ had not yet foisted The Great Society on us, so we had that going for us.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Nicomp, there is no question there has been major technological advances, but I agree with Brad that "quality of life" has been in decline; although I would move date to the early 1980s when the tide turned against equal rights, and the massive tax changes kicked off the acceleration of income equality. The income and wealth inequality has grown to the disparity that existed prior to 1929 when you had a clear delineation between the aristocracy and the paupers.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Brad, as we have discussed in other places, it absolutely does make a difference which Party is in power. Even IF the GOP hadn't pledged to effective not govern when PBO was elected in 2009 and had actually worked with the Democrats (who "did not" promise America they wouldn't govern) and found compromise solutions to a whole host of issues; there are severe ideological differences between how each Party approaches its solution; this is the way it was before Newt Gingrich.

With his election and rise of the far Right, compromise became more and more difficult, until it ended almost entirely with the election of Obama. The only reason there was legislation in 2009 and 2010 is because of the Ds super majority. You may not agree with what passed, especially since the GOP refused to add their thoughts and help shape the final result, but A LOT got done in those two years.

Because the far Right (not the far Left) kept their promise not to legislate, unless that legislation carried a lot of anti-social riders, effectively nothing got done since 2011. And that is the difference between the Right and the Left today.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Tell me Ken, after all of the derogatory things Trump has (and will) say about women and Hispanics (fortunately not very much about blacks), why would any rational woman or Hispanic ever consider voting for him ... it's like voting for your enemy to win. There is simply no common sense that supports your hope they won't. In fact, in terms of women, their view of him has deteriorated significantly since December.

When you said " I don't think Hillary has a real shot to beat anyone, for anything... as seen by how many support Bernie, ", my eyebrows shot up. Are we watching the same primary? To date, HRC has accumulated at least 2.4 million more votes than Sander (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements... and 283 more "pledged" delegates than Sanders

I won't say Clinton has more votes than Trump, even though the GOP has had a larger turnout, because it is a false comparison, given the number of GOP challengers. I can say that almost 5 million more people didn't vote for Trump than did. Granted some of those votes who went to other candidates would have gone to Trump, e.g. Carson's, most would not have, e.g. Bush, Cruz, and a lot of Rubio voters wouldn't have. What I am saying is if the GOP race had been a two or three person race; chances are high that Trump would be in second or third.

That does not bode well for Trump in the General because there are a bunch of pissed off GOPers who will either not vote for him, which is bad enough, but some will actually vote for Hillary, i.e., the #NeverTrump crowd.

As to income and wealth inequality, I will watch the Rieche movie, but this is one subject I have studied and written about extensively since I began Hubpages.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Because the far Right (not the far Left) kept their promise not to legislate"

Absolutely correct. The Left must legislate because government must continue to grow. People are a problem and more laws must be added to control them. On the other hand, The Right sees people as an asset. The Right understands that liberty and self-determination trump oppressive government.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

If that were true, then the logical conclusion is there should be no government at all and let the people fight it out, survival of the fittest kind of thing?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

Indeed that is what The Left would consider a logical conclusion. The Right, on the other hand, understands that the government exists to preserve opportunity for self-determination and to preserve liberty.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

What the Left understands is what the framers of the Constitution understood the purpose of the federal government to be:

"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Those are NOT narrowly defined propositions.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

More proof that The Left does not understand liberty. The powers of the Federal Government are narrowly and specifically defined in the US Constitution. The concepts you listed are to be promoted by that government within the framework of those narrow and well-defined powers.

What The Left essentially misunderstands is that equal opportunity is not the same as equal outcome. The former can be provided, the latter cannot.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

There is that "small segment" of the far, far Left that actually thinks equal opportunity equates to equal outcome.

Most of us in the center and center Left believe that equal opportunity means exactly that "equal opportunity". The difference between the Right and Left is the Left believes the government has a responsibility that ALL people have a shot at "equal opportunity"; the Right does not.

If two runners are at the starting line, one with a ball and chain on his ankle that 1) he didn't put there and 2) it is not in his power to remove before the start of the race; the Left thinks the government has a duty to remove the ball and chain; the Right simple says that's life, live with it and tell the guy he has the power to be Superman and melt the chain off. If he isn't Superman, they tell him it is fault that he is not.

The Right wrongly believes that each human being has 100% control over their own lives and that no one else has the ability to get in their way (like a whole community not hiring blacks because they are black)

Another example the Right lifts is nose at is the FACT that conservative States made sure through law and outright coercion that the black community, as a group, remained without the remotest possibility of achieving equal rights or equal opportunity. This was out in the open (and they were proud of it) since the 1700s until it went underground with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in 1964 and 1965. Conservatives didn't think these laws were needed because the blacks, contrary to reality, weren't systematically oppressed.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 6 months ago from Florida

@ Esoteric

I would say that is correct, the Right does not believe in 'compensating' for whatever inequality certain people in government feels exists. That IS NOT the job of the government.

The government is supposed to exist for the betterment of America and all Americans.... the Left (and many of the Right for that matter) no longer support that concept, they are too busy trying to build a fairer more equal world at the expense of America's best interests... under the misguided belief that nations like China and Iran will play nice.

Others believe only in what the Corporations or Wall St. sharks tell them to believe, based on the size of their 'donations'... and others follow beliefs bent on religious dogma first and foremost, that is becoming more and more noticeable with Islam so that now it is no longer quite hidden from view like it has been in years past.

Your error Esoteric is you try to quantify the Left or Right into simplified beliefs and goals, what I have been saying is the majority on BOTH sides of the isle are totally corrupt, and are selling out America's best interests to the highest bidder.

Past that, there are clear signs that the Corporations and Wall St. are pushing for a more globalized outlook, that is how they make more money for themselves, that is how they get richer, while Americans get poorer.

Only Trump has truly stepped up to the mike and pointed out SOME of this to America... he has pointed out the horrid trade agreements that favor the corporations at American worker's expense... he has pointed out the bogus environmental/EPA laws that strangle our greatest resource (cheap power) and cause even more difficulty for companies here in America to compete with those abroad... he points out that millions of illegal immigrants come here to work and drive down wages and jobs available, and worse, under Obama's administration they have been added to the welfare roles, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions to be added to our National Debt.

The problems that face us are not anywhere near as simple as Trump calling a woman a 'bimbo' I could care less if he calls all women 'bimbos' if he can get into Washington and do HALF of what he has stated he would do, that would be better than anything we have seen done in 25 years in Washington... I could care less who's feelings he hurt, so long as the interests of America were better served.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

"There is that "small segment" of the far, far Left that actually thinks equal opportunity equates to equal outcome."

Sure. And that small segment has co-opted every public and private college, save two. That small segment financed Bernie Sanders' campaign for the Democrat nomination and that small segment shows up in droves at his rallies.

"Another example the Right lifts is nose at is the FACT that conservative States made sure through law and outright coercion that the black community, as a group, remained without the remotest possibility of achieving equal rights or equal opportunity. "

You confuse Republicans with conservatives. A common mistake that is sadly perpetuated by The Left and many media outlets.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

@Ken Burgess :

"I would say that is correct, the Right does not believe in 'compensating' for whatever inequality certain people in government feels exists. That IS NOT the job of the government."

I couldn't say it better. We have devolved to believing that government can solve all problems. We do not have a Human Right to not be offended.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 6 months ago from Orange County California

Ken

Excellent comment


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Nicomp,

If you have read the Federalist Papers, you will see that the Framers did not have "narrowly and specifically defined in the US Constitution" or "narrow and well-defined powers." While men like Hamilton and Madison will argue forcefully that what they intended was a "limited" government; but their words tell me that does NOT equate to "narrow and well-defined"; not by a long-shot.

They, especially Hamilton in a paragraph I will quote in another hub, freely acknowledge that they cannot see what will be needed in the future; they were very cognizant that the world changes in time and wrote a constitution such that it could change with it.

They often referred to the State Legislatures as "incompetent" in many regards during their Convention deliberations, and it was the duty of the federal government to fill in the void. In fact, it was seriously considered by James Madison that the Federal Legislature should have "veto" power (his words, not mine) over ANY law a State might pass if it is found in contradiction to the needs of the federal government. Obviously, Madison was not successful in his pursuit.

So no, the Framers didn't mean for the Constitution "narrow and well-defined"; only limited.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Where did I ever say anything about " the Right does not believe in 'compensating' for ... , Ken, please point it out. What I DID say was that it was government's responsibility to ensure everybody has a shot at "equal opportunity"; that they have a duty to remove artificially barriers to both "equal rights" and "equal opportunity" ... that is FAR, FAR removed from so-called "compensation" isn't it.

When you say "... they are too busy trying to build a fairer more equal world at the expense of America's best interests ... " do you mean it is NOT in the interest, even the national interest, of America for the world to be "fairer more equal"?? The corollary of what you assert is that it IS in the best interest of America for the world is NOT "fairer more equal"? That is a very interesting position to take, even for someone on the far right in America.

When you say I "try to quantify the Left or Right into simplified beliefs and goals"; I don't, there is nothing simple about the philosophies of conservatism and liberalism. In both cases the core beliefs of each is not understandable to the other unless an individual really tries.

A great example of this is your comment about "fairer more equal". It makes perfect sense to you, but how you can be against fairness and equality is beyond my comprehension. But in reading Russell Kirk, I can see why equality, the kind mentioned by Jefferson, doesn't work in the kind of society you think works best.

I don't buy into the hyperbole that "... majority on BOTH sides of the aisle are totally corrupt, and are selling out America's best interests to the highest bidder." The existence to the Tea Party caucus in the House is proof you are wrong in that assertion. I don't deny that Dark and Light money has huge influence on legislation; but keep in mind most politicians are predisposed to favor that legislation in the first place. Also, the dynamics of Party politics probably has as much influence on what is done; consider the agreement between GOP Party leaders to stop Obama from doing his job and bringing Congress to a standstill; corporate bosses weren't part of that meeting.

The fact that Trump is proud and vocal of being a misogynist tells me he doesn't have clue about what America and is unfit to lead this country. If he is elected, he will probably lead America into his fifth bankruptcy.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

"You confuse Republicans with conservatives." is a very curious thing to say because virtually every member that is left in the GOP call themselves conservative today. It didn't use to be that way until the conservatives kicked people like me out of the GOP; all that is left are conservatives, including the conservative Democrats which switched Parties to be with like-minded individuals.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 6 months ago from Florida

@Esoteric.... I love that point I see the anti-Trump crowd clinging to... the bankruptcy thing... the man has probably invested himself into over a thousand businesses in his lifetime, I can't imagine the scope of that, or the experience that has given him to work off of.

Really I have run a couple programs that had budgets in the millions, and I handled a few employees that answered directly to me, I've handled a couple of businesses and it was all I could handle.

Trump has had a few businesses go bad... that would be a BIG deal if he only had a few businesses rather than a few HUNDRED businesses.

This guy took a moderate family business in NY, and turned it into a worldwide recognized conglomeration ... not one person in 10 million could do that, that is how unique what he has done with his life is.

Neither Obama nor Clinton nor anyone else in politics could do it... cause if they had the mettle and ability to do so, they would have. Politics is for people who know how to BS really well and who don't want to work for a living.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

"... they were very cognizant that the world changes in time and wrote a constitution such that it could change with it."

Absolutely. And they provided multiple ways for that change to take place. Sadly, presidents such as BHO bypass those pathways in favor of so-called "Executive actions"


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Executive orders, which have been used more by other Presidents than by PBO btw, are part and parcel of our form of government.

As to business acumen Ken, be careful of mixing "investing in" and "running a" business. While there is no doubt that he has done well and several things right, the myth of his business prowess is just that, a myth.

What Trump is most noted for, his casinos, all flopped which ended up in 4 bankruptcies hurting rich and poor alike.

The Washington Post lays it out nicely in https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/0...

His biggest success appears to be his entertainment reality shows.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Executive orders, which have been used more by other Presidents than by PBO btw, are part and parcel of our form of government."

Irrelevant to the argument, but OK.

"What Trump is most noted for, his casinos, all flopped which ended up in 4 bankruptcies hurting rich and poor alike."

Incorrect, but OK. Trump is much better known for his network TV shows, his books, and his branded products in department stores.

"His biggest success appears to be his entertainment reality shows."

If that was his biggest success, wouldn't that, by definition, be what he is best know for?"


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Not necessarily, but to tell you the truth, I didn't know his main source of income was reality shows. I knew he was the face of The Apprentice, but the thing that most people know about him, that he talks about, as well as others talk about is his real estate deals ... you know The Art of the Deal? And in that arena, he is only marginally successful.

BTW, why would you even want a businessman, successful or not, as POTUS? That is by definition a disaster in the making; as much as a disaster if he tried his hand at neurosurgery.

Whether you like it or not, politics is a profession and you need professionals to make it work right. That is part of what is wrong in Congress now, you have a bunch of neophytes who don't have a clue as to what they are doing nor how to do it. John Boehner was brought down to his knees as a result of their incompetence, and it would appear Paul Ryan is being neutralized as well.

BTW - based on the 13 polls RealClearPolitics has published to date; the count is Clinton - 146 and Trump - 30. There are no big states in that group and is a mixture of all sorts of states; from Oregon, to Arizona, to Florida, to New Hampshire, to Wisconsin. There were eight more states scattered throughout the area those states encompass. Trump is ahead only in CO, IN, and MO.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

"BTW, why would you even want a businessman, successful or not, as POTUS? That is by definition a disaster in the making; as much as a disaster if he tried his hand at neurosurgery."

Well, ummm... why would you want a Community Organizer as President?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Whether you like it or not, politics is a profession and you need professionals to make it work right."

Can't find that in the Federalist Papers. ;)


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Why would you look there? It is a simple fact of life. But since you oppose the idea, then you would agree that Trump could make neurosurgery great again by becoming a practicing doctor.

And what political office has Trump EVER held? I really shouldn't have to tell you this, but community organizing is politics, that is the point isn't it. Plus he spent time in the IL legislature as well as the U.S. Senate.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

Aha! When the Federalist Papers don't support your argument you discount them. I think the founders were clear that politician was expected to be a part-time and temporary position.

Obama spent time in the US Senate? He quit during his first term after serving 768 days. I guess that's "spending time." He also quit his seat in the Illinois Senate.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 6 months ago from Florida

The interesting thing is that Washington has basically been taken over by Corporations, Wall st. and foreign Nations (Saudi, China)... the dismantling of America from its industrial might, to its world leading education systems, to its military might is nearly complete...

To go with that is the eradication, slowly but surely, of the 'middle class'... or I should say well off working class.

The working class which is undermined by the politicians every step of the way... illegal immigrants take jobs for 9 dollars an hour that used to pay 20 two decades ago... and automation and robots take away even more.

Its a joke to say you need a politician to do a politicians job well.. all you need is no morals and the ability to lie and you can be a success. Comparing them to Neural surgeons is a sign of being completely out of touch with reality... romantizing what really is corrupt people doing hurtful things.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I don't compare neurosurgeons to politicians, except in one regard ... which I thought was glaringly obvious to the discerning reader (a little Madison snark) and that is they are both professions which a novice WILL fail at if not trained in the art.

And trying to learn how to run the country with on-the-job-training is 1) the height of hubris and 2) the height of stupidity.


Carolyn M Fields profile image

Carolyn M Fields 3 weeks ago from the USA

You may need to edit this hub.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yep, sadly, I did.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 3 weeks ago from Florida

Pathetic... but thank you, your opinion now has no credibility, nor should any reasonable person give it any credibility.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

As with yours. It is attitudes like yours which is what is wrong with America,


Wild Bill 3 weeks ago

Patrick Healy leaked emails showed that Bill Clinton knew Trump would be a formidable opponent. Here is an excerpt from those leaked emails.

"Healy also asked the Clinton campaign in that February email: "We're told that President Clinton (like Mrs. Clinton and some other Dems) thinks that Trump would be a formidable opponent in the general election, and that Dems are in a form of denial if they dismiss Trump as a joke who would be easily defeated in November. President Clinton, like others, thinks that Trump has his finger on the pulse of the electorate's mood and that only a well-financed, concerted campaign portray(ing) him as dangerous and bigoted will win what both Clintons believe will be a close November election."

My esoteric, sorry you had to buy into the hype, but the DNC and Clintons brainwashed you and millions of others. Now there is violence at the hands of brainwashed Clinton supporters (#notmypresident) and President Obama and Secretary Clinton will not even speak out about it.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

No, not true, I don't " buy in to hype", in fact I ignore it. My background is analysis and that is what I do with politics. I observe the world through neutral glasses with this caveat ... I Do use my personal filter of what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, what is good for the nation and for the individual; that is the Only filter I use.

It does appear Trump understood and utilized the extreme white anger in America, amplified it a 100-fold and turned this into one of the most hateful campaign since Adams-Jefferson. It can be Proved that 70 to 80% of Everything he said was an outright lie, misrepresentation of fact, despicable insults.

Clinton, on the other hand, only had to repeat his own words to run her negative ads, she didn't need nor use anything more. Her "deplorable" comment was unfortunate, even it was true; over 50% of Trump's supporters Are racist, xenophobic, sexist, and Islamophobia; several studies of Trump supporters came to the same conclusion.

I have watched the political scene since about 5th grade. I remember Kennedy and know where I was when he was shot, civics class of all places. I followed Johnson, Nixon (voted for him in a mock election), Ford (voted for him), Carter, Reagan (voted for him both times, but now wish I hadn't the second time), Bush 41 (voted for him), Clinton (voted for him), Bush 43 (voted for Gore), Obama (voted for him) and now Trump (happily voted for Clinton).

Do you get the idea? I voted Republican because they were moderates who believed in social justice and were fiscally responsible and Most importantly . I voted for Reagan because of his oratory and ability to heal the nation. I didn't realize how horribly he treated the less well off until too late. I voted for Bush 41 because again, he was a moderate Republican and then the GOP made a sharp Right turn and left me in the dust with desire to return to the 1800s socially. Donald Trump attached his wagon to the intolerant Right.

You didn't mention the KKK celebrating on the North Carolina bridge, fortunately they weren't lynching any blacks or Muslims at the moment. The "violence" you are referring to is them burning and effigy of Trump's head. That is better than the picture I have of a Tea Party supporter stomping on some poor woman's head.


Wild Bill 3 weeks ago

myesoteric said: " Her "deplorable" comment was unfortunate, even it was true; over 50% of Trump's supporters Are racist, xenophobic, sexist, and Islamophobia; several studies of Trump supporters came to the same conclusion."

First of all, you sound as though you are only sorry that she was caught saying that! lol That is very elitist of you. Clinton did say a bureaucrat must have two faces.

Secondly, this is why the polls were wrong; because of this false attitude towards people who want real change. The silent majority was such because of this false image created by the media, Hillary, and the DNC. It is a fact that the DNC sent people into Trump rallies to instigate violence and it is the liberals who are violent now.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/...

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37946231

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3922098/Th...

I could keep going and going, but I am tired of copying and pasting. Your lot is a violent people who bully and intimidate Americans into getting what they want, even when the people spoke and voted Trump into office, liberals don't respect the process of democracy. You think bullying and intimidation can get you anything you want. Well the silent majority has spoken and we will not budge anymore.

What is worse is that the President is not disavowing the violent protesters and protests, nor is Secretary Clinton. They view it as OK since they view this as a loss for Democrats instead of a win for Americans. We are not divided by political lines. We are one country.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

No, I am not sorry about saying it, she should have known it would hurt even though she spoke the truth.

You see, this is how your side works, you lie and then you lie again and again. You Clearly didn't read your own sources, probably just looked at the pictures. YOU said: ,"Hillary, and the DNC. It is a fact that the DNC sent people into Trump rallies to instigate violence and it is the liberals who are violent now"

Now the TRUTH is, those stories were not about Trump rallies at all, they were peaceful protests marred by, according to YOUR source Anarchists. If you didn't know, that is the Left-wing version of your KKK, White Supremacists, and other head-stompers that side with Trump.

If fact, anarchists are like most Trump supporters, they want change regardless of the cost and harm.

I won't bother with the rest of your hyperbole.


Wild Bill 2 weeks ago

My Esoteric said: "You see, this is how your side works, you lie and then you lie again and again. You Clearly didn't read your own sources, probably just looked at the pictures. YOU said: ,"Hillary, and the DNC. It is a fact that the DNC sent people into Trump rallies to instigate violence and it is the liberals who are violent now"

Now the TRUTH is, those stories were not about Trump rallies at all, they were peaceful protests marred by, according to YOUR source Anarchists."

I did not lie. I think the post-election tears are causing you to misread what I wrote. I said: "It is a fact that the DNC sent people into Trump rallies to instigate violence and it is the liberals who are violent now."

As you see I said "now" and then showed a list of violent liberal protests that are happening now, so I know good and well what my sources were about.

You said: "Now the TRUTH is, those stories were not about Trump rallies at all, they were peaceful protests marred by, according to YOUR source Anarchists."

I know the sources said anarchists, but it was not the proper name for a separate group as you are portraying it to be by capitalizing the word. They did say anarchists, but that doesn't mean it was a separate group. If so, why did they not name the anarchist group? No, it was because they were liberals and Hillary supporters who are also anarchists. Did you not think people can be both? Like most liberal right now, you are reaching very hard to put the blame on others and make yourself look squeaky clean. What you guys should be doing is reconsider your message and how to reach the voters in the next elections instead of being obstructionists.

Unlike you, I know there are no perfect groups or ideologies. There are hardliners everywhere. While Republicans do have the Tea Party and some white supremacists, the democrats have there share too, such as the Black Panthers who show up to voting areas and try to intimidate voters and also these thousands and thousands of violent protesters who do not respect the election process. The difference is that Republican fringe groups are just that; fringe groups. They did not protest the results of the elections. They did it by voting out liberal congress.

The democrat hardliners, on the other hand, are big enough to have hundreds of thousands to protest the democratic election that took place by using violence, bullying, and intimidation.

Maybe next time you should take a look at what I really wrote before you accuse me of being a liar. You just made me, a middle of the road , dislike hard-line liberals like yourself even more.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I did. Your parsing doesn't help you.


Wild Bill 2 weeks ago

Undoubtedly it did because you cannot disagree with a single point


nicomp profile image

nicomp 2 weeks ago from Ohio, USA

I'm still trying to figure out who Trump hates. Perhaps I should watch The Daily Show more often.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

No, simply read the mainstream news which is very unbiased when compared to those on the left and right. Didn't you hear a word that Trump said and how he acted ... and now who he has appointed (Bannon) as his top adviser?

He is a despicable man. No one doubts, including many who voted for him (either because they don't care or they hold similar views as about 50% do according to surveys).

Having said that, unlike the Right for PBO, I will without my opinion about how he will conduct himself as President (HRC is approaching a one million vote lead in the popular vote) both in demeanor and actions (or lack there of).

I have never seen the Daily Show, it is entertainment like Hannity and Limbaugh, and not true political commentary.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 2 weeks ago from Ohio, USA

After all that I am still not clear who he hates


jman00001 profile image

jman00001 2 weeks ago from Texas

Trump is a clear opposite of Clinton & Obama. Trump is a Nationalist not Globalist, an International businessman and a billionaire who can't be bought off like all current politicians who are owned by their backers ( Hillary Clinton stated that opinion about Trump in 2013). More Americans are waking up to the reality, for 3 decades now it hasn't mattered whether democrats or republicans ran the White House or Congress... politicians kept passing one anti-American law and trade agreement after another... jobs are fleeing to other countries, wages are going down, and taxes are going up.

People are voted against those things more than they are voting for Trump. Trump was a protest vote and was a non-violent way to give voice to their frustrations and he is a true outsider... he made his fortune of Washington, rather than through it.

Why do Clinton supporters not see that the protests and violence is primarily my the pro Clinton group against the pro Trump folks. Pro Clinton supporters and media lied , cheated and committed crimes that have been captured on video.

Yet the media constant lies about who is doing the violence just as they falsified the early polling data for weeks before the election.. just as they inspire uneducated liberals to commit violence and nonsensical protests.

"Love Trumps Hate" is a good slogan.. Student liberals should listen to it and stop hating and join Obama in supporting the new president elect..


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Sorry, Trump is the king of lying, misrepresentation of the truth, fabrication, and anger. Nearly 90 % of the statements he made were half-truths, lies, or pants-on- fire lies while only about 26% were, with, if memory serves, only one pants-on-fire lie. Why is that.

You know as well as I do, those causing violence aren't the protesters, they are violent agitators who will sow violence in any peaceful protest, Left or Right. By the way, did you see the other day when a Trump support charged down on a peaceful protester using a bull horn, body-slammed on the stairs and knocking him down the same stairs. He is lucky he lived after the Trump supporter tried to murder him.


Wild Bill 2 weeks ago

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/tech-ceo-voewd-murder-d...

My Esoteric said: "You know as well as I do, those causing violence aren't the protesters, they are violent agitators who will sow violence in any peaceful protest, Left or Right."

No, I don't. You just cannot admit that Liberals are violent too. I can at least admit there are violent fringe groups with the conservative ideology, but you will never let on that you know Liberals have violent tendencies too. It would just kill you to admit that. Everyone knows that the violent protests are by Hillary supporters. They do not and have never respected the democratic process.


Wild Bill 2 weeks ago

My Esoteric said: "He is lucky he lived after the Trump supporter tried to murder him."

Just like your liberal brotheren, you take and incident and add a lie to spin it how you want. It was not attempted murder, it was misdemeanor simple assault. Don't look now, your pants are on fire! lol


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Tell me, if you were knocked violently (and it was very violent the way it looked to me) down a series of concrete steps you don't think you might die from a broken neck maybe or a deadly concussion from hitting your head on the corner of a stair? If he had died, it would be pre-meditated murder, period. Fortunately he didn't.

Now, tell me what peaceful Protester did that? Don't give me your violence crap because those people are not legitimate protesters, simply criminals.


Wild Bill 2 weeks ago

Your hyperbole has no grounds. The man was charged with misdemeanor simple assault. This is the facts of the case. You are lying to try and fit something to your point.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yes, because the victim didn't die or get seriously hurt. I had asked you actually Think about something, clearly you didn't.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 2 weeks ago from Ohio, USA

At least we can all agree that Trump's groping and lying were executed on his dime while Bill Clinton's groping and lying occurred as a public servant. Let's all get along long enough to give The Donald a chance.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

As I have said earlier, will never respect Donald Trump, he is over all a despicable man I personally have ever seen, although I suspect Bannon is worse.

Bill Clinton Never thought of women in such a misogynistic, offense way that that Trump is. Bill Clinton, obviously suffers from the same sense of sexual prowess exhibited by many men, and some women, positions of power like that; world history is full of examples of such poor behavior, it simply comes with the territory.

But most of them don't think in terms like "look at that face" or "I am a star, I can grab their (women's) pussies all I want" and other of hundred other similar remarks. Oh yeah, Trump is also guilty of womanizing eith the best of them.

Having said that, I will not do what the conservatives did to PBO and publicly claim that their whole political purpose for the next 4 for then 8 years, is to destroy Obama; instead I will hold my opinion until he starts doing his job. I am not holding my breath, however. that it will be good for the country ... but then I thought he would lose the election to.


Wild Bill 2 weeks ago

Well esoteric

By your definition, any assault is considered attempted murder. Thank goodness you are not a judge.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

No, again, I look at the circumstances.

-Where they on flat ground? No, they were on a cement or stone staircase.

- Did he just punch or slap the guy? No, he "pushed" him.

- Did he attack him from the front? No, he, in a very cowardly fashion, blinded-sided him from the back.

- Did he push him gently or moderately? No, he took a running start down the stairs to shove him very hard in the back.

- Where the stairs steep enough and of such a material to likely cause great bodily harm? Yes

- Was it pre-meditated? Yes.

All of those added together tell me there was a foreseeable chance of death ... far from the misdemeanor assault he was charge with. That kind of assault is me or you pushing the other on their but on flat ground.

However, as I just read, this wasn't a pro-Trump supporter trying to kill an anti-Trump supporter, it apparently had nothing to do with politics and more to do with mental illness; the guy that was pushed is trying to get the charges dropped.

But, nevertheless, from the video anyway, I would have prosecuted (which I did for Special Courts martials in the Army for a year o so) for some sort of attempted homicide.


Wild Bill 2 weeks ago

Well, it is a good thing we don't live in your world. You seem to be incapable of basing your judgements on a case by case basis. So is helmet to helmet in football attempted murder too? Lmao

Regardless, you lied about this being attempted murder since he was charged only as a misdemeanor. You were intentionally misleading.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

No, I didn't lie, you don't read, do you. What I SAID was "... tried to murder him.

You wouldn't know a case-by-case if it slapped upside the head. But to help you, this is the epitome of "case-by-case" lol.

No, again, I look at the circumstances.

-Where they on flat ground? No, they were on a cement or stone staircase.

- Did he just punch or slap the guy? No, he "pushed" him.

- Did he attack him from the front? No, he, in a very cowardly fashion, blinded-sided him from the back.

- Did he push him gently or moderately? No, he took a running start down the stairs to shove him very hard in the back.

- Where the stairs steep enough and of such a material to likely cause great bodily harm? Yes

- Was it pre-meditated? Yes.

ALL OF THOSE ADDED TOGETHER (that is case-by-case, in case you didn't know it) ALL of those [factors] added together tell me there was a foreseeable chance of death ... far from the misdemeanor assault he was charge with. That kind of assault is me or you pushing the other on their but on flat ground.


Wild Bill 2 weeks ago

You lied. You called it attempted murder, but it was only a misdemeanor. or are you saying that police and judges are dumber than you?

Unlike you, I only speak fact. It was not attempted murder


nicomp profile image

nicomp 13 days ago from Ohio, USA

"Bill Clinton Never thought of women in such a misogynistic, offense way that that Trump is. Bill Clinton, obviously suffers from the same sense of sexual prowess exhibited by many men, and some women, positions of power like that; world history is full of examples of such poor behavior, it simply comes with the territory."

Oh. My. Goodness.

A sitting US President having sex in the Oval Office with an intern is "poor behavior."

Sigh.

I give up.

We can go no lower. We have reached bottom.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 13 days ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yes, a sitting president having sex, in his case the Oval Office, just like dozens before him and I am sure after, given Trumps record of lack of fidelity; hell, he even two-tied his current wife.

Powerful people have extra-marital affairs is as old as time, or is that news to you. Treating women the way Trump does, however, is much rarer.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 12 days ago from Ohio, USA

"Powerful people have extra-marital affairs is as old as time, or is that news to you. Treating women the way Trump does, however, is much rarer."

You have no credibility. Don't even try any more. You threw Monica Lewinsky under the bus to prop up your perverted House of Clinton.


Ronzui 11 days ago

Typical delusional dribble from a libtard who refuses to see the truth..imagine a world if you can...if democrats and liberals got everything they wanted..we would live in a nation worse than Russia. esoteric im sure your pulling in a nice monthly check from this great Nation how bout supporting whats right instead of living in your smarter than thou world.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 11 days ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I do support what is right. I support what the Preamble to the Constitution says and proud of it. You do know don't you, that the Constitution is a Liberal document don't you? It was a reaction to conservative English rule.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 11 days ago from Ohio, USA

"I do support what is right. I support what the Preamble to the Constitution says and proud of it"

No, you do not. Progressive thought has no interest in self-determination.

"You do know don't you, that the Constitution is a Liberal document don't you?"

You are conflating two very different definitions of Liberal. Modern Liberalism in America has as much to do with our founding documents as a toilet paper does to the New York Times.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 11 days ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

No, I am not. In both cases, liberal, by definition, means that the Individual is preeminent, in most cases, over the State. The difference between liberals is whether they think government has a role in the welfare of its citizens.

There have always been both groups. It is just that throughout most of our history, politicians chose to ignore its citizens and ONLY concentrate on the wealthy to the detriment of everybody else. There have been rare exceptions such as when Republicans (they were liberal then but obviously not now) passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They were opposed by classic liberals and non-progressive conservatives (the left wing of conservatism were your original progressives)

Conservatives do say the same thing, but if you study what conservatism really is, and has always been, it is a philosophy that puts the State above the individual; that the group is more important; that society is naturally hierarchical which means one group is more important than another ... think men are primary and women are secondary. That is true of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and William F. Buckley Jr.


Misfit Chick profile image

Misfit Chick 9 days ago from Seattle, WA - USA - The WORLD

Dang, aren't these 'debates' frustrating - like banging your head against a wall. That was probably the goal of this election: deeper division, cuz we're not quite divided enough, yet. Until people start realizing how profitable these divisions are (in a few different ways); and that ALL of us are subject to various forms of manipulation to ensure a continuing divide - there will be no unity in our country.

No one is convincing anyone of anything. Everywhere I go around the internet, the arguments are the same and just as heated. Every American citizen knows it ALL. I'm an Independent who has a foot in both sides of the aisles - so I kind of get to be mad at everybody, ha!

I can confirm (if anyone is interested) what My Esosteric said above about the origins of liberals & conservatives. We humans live in the present, assuming that past perspectives were always the same as they are, now. I distinctly remember my very Republican Midwest History teacher in high school lecturing us for a few days (that even included a film!) about the Republican Party being born out the need to get away from 'old' party ideals. He seemed very proud of that fact; and since my parents were diehard Republicans; at the time, I thought it was something to be pretty proud of, too. I still do. That is how things get done: if find it impossible or repulsive to live by life's non-existent rules, change the damn rules!

The reason why there is such a division between CURRENT liberals & conservatives is religion (specifically, party stances on abortion) - while BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES have a significant portion of their members identifying themselves Christians.

In the end, they are all arguing about 'what Christ really meant' in whatever imperative bible verse they are picking apart - while atheists and the less-extremist religious folks actually do their research; and weigh the pros & cons before voting (although they are still obviously just as easily manipulated by targeted 'hot points' and hateful, misogynistic rhetoric).

Its AMAZING what really REVS UP the HEART of a TRUE PATRIOT!

The problem is that The Donald wasn't the right choice if for no other reason than this (which is PLENTY): his volitile disposition that seems to be so entrenched an infantile, UGLY temper. He really has stirred up so many ugly things among us; and who knows what else he will stir up?

That isn't someone we want in the Oval Office; and you all know it. Whatever you think about Obama & Michelle, they never embarrassed this country beyond what any other president ever has (Bush puking at a diplomatic dinner, for example). We're humans, it makes sense to treat each other like it.

All Trump has done since the beginning of his run for the GOP nomination is do & say absolutely everything he could to make the divisions of this country as deep as possible. Despite his call for 'unity' during his post-election speech, Trump has made no effort reach out to the MANY people he offended in so many different ways. He really needs to do that.

Too many of us have been driven 'right' or 'left' with not nearly enough of us marching down the middle. The chasm that exists through both America & The World is a lot more simple than most people realize. Christians & ex-Christians Prove God Exists by Debunking Salvation: Science & Spirituality Reveal the Real Jesus Christ. Look it up. There is no apocalypse for people to base a vote on that next time. No more voting on fake hype, fake news or fake fear.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 8 days ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Insightful, Misfit.

While religion, mainly fundamentalism and evangelical, is a piece of the puzzle; there is something more fundamental behind the bright line between conservatism and liberalism.

Conservatism has been the modus operandi for the world since the beginning of time, with a few isolated exceptions; until the late 1700s, that is, when John Locke summarized liberal thinking that had been developing up to then.

The core of any liberal is expanding the liberty of individuals. This is why it initially, in America, took on "limited" (generally meaning virtually no) government and laissez-faire economics. As time moved on, however, both ideas proved, in practice, to be anti-liberal because both, when allowed to run amok leads to lessening of individual liberty and not more. The reason is, "left uncontrolled", those ideas always lead to a few haves running everything and a nation full of have-nots.

In order for liberals to reach their goal of maximizing individual liberty, those who seek to take it way because of their wealth and power, are regulated. Such regulation, while putting controls on individuals who would abuse, allows for greater liberty for the society as a whole.

Conservatives, by definition, do not want ubiquitous individual liberty. That is because they are driven by the believe society, for it to succeed, must be ordered and hierarchical and led by a "higher power", meaning God, of course.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working