Alexander Hamilton predicted Donald Trump

[TheParser]

With all due respect, I would not credit Mr. Hamilton with the foresight to have foreseen the Honorable Donald J. Trump.


In fact, that quotation would more accurately describe some other presidents.


I have read, for example, that President Lincoln, who is revered by so many people, was no slouch when it came to ignoring certain provisions of the Constitution.

 

[rickc]

trump doesn't scare me nearly as bad as what he has revealed in his supporters

if almost half of America thinks this way we are in deep trouble!

 

[JackA]

With all due respect, I would not credit Mr. Hamilton with the foresight to have foreseen the Honorable Donald J. Trump.


In fact, that quotation would more accurately describe some other presidents.


I have read, for example, that President Lincoln, who is revered by so many people, was no slouch when it came to ignoring certain provisions of the Constitution.

Lincoln ignored habeas corpus at the start of the Civil War. What else?

 

[jnug]

trump doesn't scare me nearly as bad as what he has revealed in his supporters

if almost half of America thinks this way we are in deep trouble!

I don't know how many Americans even of the MINORITY that voted for Donald in 2016 are dedicated to a Royal King Donald. I do think that it is possible that 20% of the Electorate whether they know it or not is dedicated to bringing to full flower a Royal King Donald. They are truly scary, truly ignorant of history and completely mesmerized into projecting onto the government we have the government we would have if we did have a Royal King Donald. Doubt that group represents a number higher than 20% of the Electorate. Pretty scary that the number could be that high though. I will agree with you there.

Once you realize that hard core Trumpets are really frothing for a Royal King Donald, half their gibberish posted in these pages becomes understandable. It is still gibberish but at least it becomes gibberish you can plow through without pulling your hair out.

 

[Fletch]

I don't know how many Americans even of the MINORITY that voted for Donald in 2016 are dedicated to a Royal King Donald. I do think that it is possible that 20% of the Electorate whether they know it or not is dedicated to bringing to full flower a Royal King Donald. They are truly scary, truly ignorant of history and completely mesmerized into projecting onto the government we have the government we would have if we did have a Royal King Donald. Doubt that group represents a number higher than 20% of the Electorate. Pretty scary that the number could be that high though. I will agree with you there.

Once you realize that hard core Trumpets are really frothing for a Royal King Donald, half their gibberish posted in these pages becomes understandable. It is still gibberish but at least it becomes gibberish you can plow through without pulling your hair out.

Whats scary and ignorant is that you make up numbers (like 20%) and pass it off as truth. You really should stop trying to justify your own ignorant beliefs with made up garbage like that.

 

[jnug]

Whats scary and ignorant is that you make up numbers (like 20%) and pass it off as truth. You really should stop trying to justify your own ignorant beliefs with made up garbage like that.

"I do think that it is possible that 20% of the Electorate whether they know it or not is dedicated to bringing to full flower a Royal King Donald"

Do you know how to read at all? In fact do you know how to do anything besides dance over the keyboard? I think you just made my point for me. Thank you.

By the way, what are you trying to argue, that the number is greater than 20%?

 

[Fletch]

"I do think that it is possible that 20% of the Electorate whether they know it or not is dedicated to bringing to full flower a Royal King Donald"

Do you know how to read at all? In fact do you know how to do anything besides dance over the keyboard? I think you just made my point for me. Thank you.

By the way, what are you trying to argue, that the number is greater than 20%?

No, I am arguing that you pulled that number out of your ass. Which is exactly what you did.

 

[Keridan]

No, I am arguing that you pulled that number out of your ass. Which is exactly what you did.

Jnug didn't claim it was researched. Said he doubts it's more than 20. I actually thought it was probably a pretty reasonable guess.

 

[Fletch]

Jnug didn't claim it was researched. Said he doubts it's more than 20. I actually thought it was probably a pretty reasonable guess.

She pulled the number out of her ass. That you agree with it only means that there are two people who swallow with that moronic notion, not just one.

 

[jnug]

No, I am arguing that you pulled that number out of your ass. Which is exactly what you did.

You are arguing that I claimed it a "fact" which I did not.

However if you want to know the basis of my opinion, I can give you that. I am a professional marketeer now retired. Retired as a Executive VP. We are political animals, all of us whether we admit it or not and the best of us get to be Exec VP's. Business life pays better than politics and its cleaner than politics ever thought of being at least at my end of the pond. Besides politics done right requires public servants, something Trumpets simply don't know, don't understand or don't care about. I know public servants. I am no public servant and neither is Donald by the way.

I can convince 20% of a potential market of ANYTHING and I do mean anything...flat earth theory ,Bigfoot, green goblins and pink elephants...you name it....give me enough of a platform and I can convince 20% of my available market of just about anything at least for a period of time and they will end up representing the core of my base. Add to that some more sophisticated, less hyperbolic, less "frantic" marketing that actually has its basis in how I captured the first 20% and I will capture another 20% for you.....give me enough of a platform and that much is baked into our formulas.

Now you know why an election tally of not greater than 46% in a two candidate race, implying 54% for your opponent is considered a landslide. It is considered a landslide because if you as a candidate can't do more than pile another 6% of the Voters onto what somebody like me in the form of your campaign can get you by sheer force of marketing.......YOU SUCK as a candidate and you did't deserve to win. You didn't even deserve to run.

Now you can make the case that Trump ran his own campaign in the early days and that HE was responsible for that first 20% of his support. But that does not invalidate the numbers and that is my opinion based on personal experience over a long long period of time actually doing it.

 

[Keridan]

She pulled the number out of her ass. That you agree with it only means that there are two people who swallow with that moronic notion, not just one.

I can't tell if you are trolling or just have trouble understanding the basics of the language. No one is arguing that the number had been researched.

No matter the reason, it's obvious you aren't interested in considered debate.

 

[Fletch]

I can't tell if you are trolling or just have trouble understanding the basics of the language. No one is arguing that the number had been researched.

No matter the reason, it's obvious you aren't interested in considered debate.

There is no way to debate an issue based upon numbers you choose to pull from your ass. For example:

30% of abortion supporters support abortion because they are child molesters who believe that fewer children walking around will limit their desire to molest kids.

Discuss.

 

[Keridan]

There is no way to debate an issue based upon numbers you choose to pull from your ass. For example:

30% of abortion supporters support abortion because they are child molesters who believe that fewer children walking around will limit their desire to molest kids.

Discuss.

There is no way to get a firm number on what people are thinking. Therefor we make our best guess, admit it is an approximation, and move forward with discussion.

Give me a basis for your conclusion of why the child molesters make up 30% and it becomes a basis for discussion.

 

[jnug]

There is no way to debate an issue based upon numbers you choose to pull from your ass. For example:

30% of abortion supporters support abortion because they are child molesters who believe that fewer children walking around will limit their desire to molest kids.

Discuss.

I suppose you would have a point if one end of the discussion you propose was being offered by a child molester. With that one acknowledgement, what the heck are you talking about?

 

[JackA]

This has been from various media sources for a decade already, so nothing to do with Trump.

From your own citation: "From 2010 to 2015, of the cases it accepted to review, the Supreme Court reversed around 79 percent of the cases from the Ninth Circuit, ranking its reversal rate third among the circuits; the median reversal rate for all federal circuits for the same time period was around 70 percent.[8]"

Third most often reversed court?

Since "From 1999 to 2008, of the 0.151% of Ninth Circuit Court rulings that were reviewed by the Supreme Court"

It certainly looks like the Supreme Court is reviewing a very small fraction of the courts ruling, but when they do, the 9th's ruling revered reversed 70% of the time.

So subject to how you want to look at it, I suppose.

I have a heard time believing that judicial decisions have an error rate between 70% and 79% of the cases reviewed by a higher court.
To me that just sounds like too high an error rate, if you can call it that, as to be acceptable.

Fewer than one percent of the Court’s decisions have been reversed. That says all you need to know. Sometimes, but rarely, courts make mistakes of law that go to the heart of the case, and the decision is successfully appealed.

 

[Fletch]

There is no way to get a firm number on what people are thinking. Therefor we make our best guess, admit it is an approximation, and move forward with discussion.

Give me a basis for your conclusion of why the child molesters make up 30% and it becomes a basis for discussion.

Because I said so.

 

[Fletch]

I suppose you would have a point if one end of the discussion you propose was being offered by a child molester. With that one acknowledgement, what the heck are you talking about?

MY thesis is every bit as valid as the "20% want Trump to be king" lunacy you threw out there.

 

[marke]

Fewer than one percent of the Court’s decisions have been reversed. That says all you need to know. Sometimes, but rarely, courts make mistakes of law that go to the heart of the case, and the decision is successfully appealed.

The ninth court is often out of sync with the majority of the American people and even more often out of sync with God.

 

[jnug]

MY thesis is every bit as valid as the "20% want Trump to be king" lunacy you threw out there.

Come on ....admit it.....Trumpets are frothing for King Donald. Virtually every post made supportive of Donald that is about government proposes a form of government that does not exist here but that would mirror the form of government that would exist with a King Donald. My God Trumpets probably ejaculate every time they think about or should I say dream of a King Donald. I fail to see why they would be afraid to admit it at this point.

Most "hard core" Trumpets have finally admitted to their position regarding White Privilege and White Nationalism. Just take the next step and admit to pining for a King Donald.

 

[eohrnberger]

Fewer than one percent of the Court’s decisions have been reversed. That says all you need to know. Sometimes, but rarely, courts make mistakes of law that go to the heart of the case, and the decision is successfully appealed.

That's a miss representation from my view. Are rulings which are not reviewed have a possibility of being reversed? I don't think so.
Only rulings that are reviewed have the potential to be overruled.

So, of the rulings that are reviewed, 0.151% of all rulings, of those, 70% are overruled.

If all of the rulings were reviewed, what would the percentage of overruling be? Would it still be 70%? That's an unknown at this point.

So when a ruling is reviewed, 70% chance it will be overturned, but that being said, in line with the same rate as all the other courts, and I stand by my earlier post, this percentage strikes me as being far too high.

 

[Keridan]

Come on ....admit it.....Trumpets are frothing for King Donald. Virtually every post made supportive of Donald that is about government proposes a form of government that does not exist here but that would mirror the form of government that would exist with a King Donald. My God Trumpets probably ejaculate every time they think about or should I say dream of a King Donald. I fail to see why they would be afraid to admit it at this point.

I honestly see an inherent dichotomy in those you are calling Trumpets. Largely, they are for smaller government. They honestly believe Trump is a means to that end. I think those that would coronate him are far fewer than those that support him right now. I'll give you roughly 20% for support of the president (meaning mostly blind support), but I would argue that number would drop considerably if he were to actually try to put on a crown.

 

[Fletch]

Come on ....admit it.....Trumpets are frothing for King Donald. Virtually every post made supportive of Donald that is about government proposes a form of government that does not exist here but that would mirror the form of government that would exist with a King Donald. My God Trumpets probably ejaculate every time they think about or should I say dream of a King Donald. I fail to see why they would be afraid to admit it at this point.

You repeating idiocy does not magically make it become truth. The number of people dreaming and ejaculating over the prospect of King Donald is exactly zero. The number of people on the left who actually believe the sort of nonsense you are spewing is probably near 100%

 

[jnug]

I honestly see an inherent dichotomy in those you are calling Trumpets. Largely, they are for smaller government. They honestly believe Trump is a means to that end. I think those that would coronate him are far fewer than those that support him right now. I'll give you roughly 20% for support of the president (meaning mostly blind support), but I would argue that number would drop considerably if he were to actually try to put on a crown.

I will give you that. But in reality a good many of them want the government that Donald wants, one that mirrors his company.

Donald does not want a pyramid shaped organizational chart whether in business or government. He wants a totem pole built on loyalty to him, narrow all the way to the top with only one guy running everything. In this case wrap the totem pole in a silo with no doors and no windows and you have Donald's perfect business or political world.

The country as a whole does arc toward justice slowly and in fits and starts but toward justice. It always did, another small item a good many from the Right simply ignore or consider irrelevant to their intentions. The country was intended to arc toward justice and give voice to that aspiration through its founding documents. So whatever the number is now that outright support, fully intend and hope for a King Donald vs those that foolishly giggle and are amused at the Donald and his notions of "government" I would agree that the number that would actually support it would fall out of his ranks.

Lets face it, some number are already falling out of his ranks. He suffered a 24% swing away from him in Independent voters in the Mid-terms. That is not a sustainable number for Trump even in a run at a second term, never mind a run at Royalty.

 

[jnug]

You repeating idiocy does not magically make it become truth. The number of people dreaming and ejaculating over the prospect of King Donald is exactly zero. The number of people on the left who actually believe the sort of nonsense you are spewing is probably near 100%

I can point to God only knows how many Trumpet posts in this very forum that are clear indications of a complete lack of understanding for and respect for the government that we have or even for the country that we have while espousing the values of a government that could only exist with a King Donald. My God some of them have been posted this very day and I am sure you have read them.

 

[veritas1]

Let me know when elections are suspended, the MSM is no longer dispensing its bile and the military is policing the land. THEN, you will have tyranny. Until then, this is but the whiny ramblings of political opponents. What's really amusing is that the far left is actually all for tyranny as long as they are the ones imposing it.