Don't count out the "Trump card."

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sexiest_hero**

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/08/MNET1ISAA5.DTL

Donald Trump, the man whom no pundit took seriously as a presidential candidate, is sitting comfortably in second place, on the shoulder of the leader, in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows.

Trump is tied at 17 percent with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and just behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 21 percent among Republican primary voters, according to the poll published Thursday. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the full sample.

The rise of Trump, a television personality, wealthy businessman, developer and owner of beauty pageants, is a testament to the power of media publicity and his pugnacious personality as well as to the weakness of the Republican field of at least a dozen possible presidential aspirants.

Most polls show about four serious contenders, including Romney, Huckabee, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, though none has been able to break away. Trump had been nestled in the second tier.

But that was before he went on the media offensive, relaunching questions about whether President Obama was born in Hawaii or outside the United States, making him constitutionally ineligible to be president.

Most people, including Republicans, agree that Obama has proved he was born in Hawaii by releasing birth documents. But that has not stopped the issue from having traction, particularly among more conservative Republicans.

"I am saying I want to see the birth certificate," Trump said Thursday in an interview with Meredith Vieira on the "Today" show. He went on to sound the same themes he has in recent weeks from almost all available cable shows and television networks.

"It's very simple," Trump said. "I want to see the birth certificate. How come his own family doesn't know which hospital he was born in?"

Trump said he has sent investigators to Hawaii to search for more information. "They cannot believe what they're finding," he told Vieira. "And I'm serious."

Trump may be serious, but a Gallup poll Thursday showed that Americans had mixed opinions about him as a presidential candidate. According to the poll, 43 percent said they had a favorable opinion and 47 percent had an unfavorable one.

The WSJ/NBC poll shows that Trump has risen to No. 1 with 20 percent among those who call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement. Romney is at 17 percent and Palin is at 12 percent, thanks to her core of supporters. Overall, Palin, the party's former vice presidential candidate, is supported by just 10 percent, a continuation of her slide in recent polls.

Trump has the tea party lead. Take that as you will. They make a solid voter block.

I see him teaming with Beck or one of the GOP leadind ladies Palin/Bauchman to make a strong ticket.

**Monster Rain**

sexiest_hero wrote:I see him teaming with Beck or one of the GOP leadind ladies Palin/Bauchman to make a strong ticket.

I think you underestimate his shrewdness.

If he seriously goes for this, he's going to do it correctly. He won't be teaming up with any of these clowns that are so easily attacked.

Trump/Paul in 2012 is actually something I'd vote for.

I can't see anything else coming from the Republicans that I'd even consider unless McCain runs again. He needs to drop the whole "birther" angle, though. I get that he's playing to the rubes but that's what screwed John McCain over last time around. If he just ran on a solid economic platform I'd be surprised if he didn't do well.

**daedalus-templarius**

/facepalm

Not going to touch this

**Karon**

Mhm, I'm voting for him if Obama fails to impress me again, which won't be that hard to do.

Trump/Paul would be pretty B.A. The man knows what he is talking about.

**mister robouteo**

I can't believe the birth thing came up again.

What I can believe is that a guy who has dabbled in everything from a cutthroat real estate empire to declaring bankruptcy to real estate empire again to reality TV babble is considered for a serious candidate. The supposed financial genius filed for bankruptcy years ago and had no end of scandals with Ivana but that is not so much talked about and memories are short among many voters.

That being said, I hope he does run, because it splits the vote from the idiot republicans away from the cautious sensible republicans.

I am not a Democrat either, but I strongly believe that short terms of office get very little done, and immediate gratification in a four year period doesn't allow for long term ideas to come to fruition. The only President I did not vote for second term was Dubyah, and that is for my own reasons, but in general, I think second termers have a lot more chance to set things up instead of just cleaning up the last guy's mess. I voted for Bush sr.'s second, Reagan's second, Clinton's second. Clinton's first was a mess with NAFTA and what not, but short of his sex life, he left pretty well.

If Trump really runs, he will get the reality TV fan voters who are republican supporters, or short sighted thinking "well he knows money so he must be able to save us from our economic problems" simplifications which are pretty assinine. This probably includes the lowest rung of tea party, not the intelligent republicans. This can do nothing to hurt the Democrat ability to get a second term as far as I can predict.

**Monster Rain**

I don't see how his personal life should be brought into it.

Also, going back to being a billionaire after filing for bankruptcy isn't necessarily a slam on the guy. People have been elected to office from the entertainment business in the past, you know.

**avantgarde**

Donald Trump is on TV and he is rich, ergo he must know what he is doing.

Why don't we elect Warren Buffet president, he's got sixteen times the net worth of Trump. Making him a better president by a factor of 16.

Warren Buffet 2012.

**Mike Noble**

I'm good with Trump/Paul.

**Ahtman**

avantgarde wrote:Donald Trump is on TV and he is rich, ergo he must know what he is doing.

Why don't we elect Warren Buffet president, he's got sixteen times the net worth of Trump. Making him a better president by a factor of 16.

Warren Buffet 2012.

It all makes sense now.

I don't see how his personal life should be brought into it.

Becuase in Presidential elections going back to the beginning of US elections it has. May not be something we like but it is something we do. We'll gnash teeth, tear cloth, and decry that it shouldn't be used and then turn around and use it. It's the American way! *single tear rolls down the cheek while saluting the flag*

**mister robouteo**

Hey I agree his personal life shouldn't have anything to do with it, but since when does that mean it wouldn't?

**Requia**

avantgarde wrote:Donald Trump is on TV and he is rich, ergo he must know what he is doing.

Why don't we elect Warren Buffet president, he's got sixteen times the net worth of Trump. Making him a better president by a factor of 16.

Warren Buffet 2012.

We could do worse actually... though he's not Christian, which makes him unelectable as far as president goes.

**Monster Rain**

mister robouteo wrote:Hey I agree his personal life shouldn't have anything to do with it, but since when does that mean it wouldn't?

Fair point.

I suppose I'm a hopeless idealist.

**ShumaGorath**

I pray trump is the republican candidate. He's unelectable.

**Emperors Faithful**

Monster Rain wrote:
mister robouteo wrote:Hey I agree his personal life shouldn't have anything to do with it, but since when does that mean it wouldn't?

Fair point.

I suppose I'm a hopeless idealist.

But we love you all the same!

**ShumaGorath**

Monster Rain wrote:I don't see how his personal life should be brought into it.

Also, going back to being a billionaire after filing for bankruptcy isn't necessarily a slam on the guy. People have been elected to office from the entertainment business in the past, you know.

A mans personal life is a reflection of the man. We aren't electing words, we're electing a person. The personal life is an important consideration when measuring the worth of a candidate. This isn't a happy feely soccer camp trip, this is the presidency. Not everyone is worthy and you avoid idiots when you look beyond their speeches. Trump is an idiotic blowhard with insane opinions and bad business sense. This is an opinion gathered from his persona life, it's telling, and the implications it brings on his worth as a candidate are important.

**FITZZ**

ShumaGorath wrote:I pray trump is the republican candidate. He's unelectable.

I think you may be woefully underestimating "product appeal".

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:A mans personal life is a reflection of the man. We aren't electing words, we're electing a person.

Alas, I suspect that if it was a potential Democratic candidate's personal life some people would be singing a different tune.

Either way I don't think someone's relationships with their previous wife(wives?) would necessarily dictate what kind of president they would make, one way or the other. Bill Clinton wasn't a bad President and he was, from what I can gather, a bit of a dawg.

**mister robouteo**

It only matters if the opposing party can use it. Personally I don't think a persons ability to govern has anything to do with being a nice guy. Efficiency at the job is all that should matter. If I lived there, I would have that witch girl from Delaware or Maryland or whatever she was from too if she had credientials and a track record of good performance at the job. As it was though, the only thing detractors were worried about was discrediting her for irrelevant background because that is what worked better than any lack-of-experience or similar descredit. It works in the opposite direction too though, with candidates getting votes for their stance on traditional "family values" (aka religious/lifestyle choices) rather than performance, especially when it comes to freshman congress members and the morally high grounded "right".

**micahaphone**

Who wouldn't elect a guy who cares about big businesses and hates unions, after a depression caused by big businesses?

**Melissia**

Monster Rain wrote:He needs to drop the whole "birther" angle, though.

He and every other brainwashed republican that lives near me. I'm fething tired of hearing of these conspiracy nutters, they're more persistent than the truthers.

**Ahtman**

Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:A mans personal life is a reflection of the man. We aren't electing words, we're electing a person.

Alas, I suspect that if it was a potential Democratic candidate's personal life some people would be singing a different tune.

Either way I don't think someone's relationships with their previous wife(wives?) would necessarily dictate what kind of president they would make, one way or the other. Bill Clinton wasn't a bad President and he was, from what I can gather, a bit of a dawg.

I disagree about the Democratic bit. And of course we knew about his womanizing but he was voted in anyway. There is a difference between not knowing and choosing to look past something. Heck, many people probably liked him for being a player. He could do it becuase he was smooth and charismatic. Trump is neither and his philandering seems more like he hired a hooker in comparison. Both are bad but unless it is something more than just screwing around that in and of itself wouldn't keep a candidate from being elected. Newt Gingrich is probably going to run and he is also having to answer for cheating on his wives. His problem, such as Trumps isn't just that he cheated, it is that he has multiple wives and cheated on all of them. Clinton just cheated on the one. They will get more flack for being married more than twice than cheating. Newt's reasoning, and I am not making this up, is that he loves America so much that he was to busy focusing on the business of the people and allowed himself to be tempted. I mean, come one, that is just fantastic.

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:Clinton just cheated on the one.

I also get the sense that it was only cheating to people looking in from the outside, meaning that there was some kind of mutual agreement between Bill and Hilary.

**RustyKnight**

Where's the Romney love?

**Happygrunt**

Trump wins, I find a new country. Simple as that. I love America, but that would be too much.

**dogma**

ShumaGorath wrote:I pray trump is the republican candidate. He's unelectable.

I want to see him debate, like, really bad.

**Albatross**

Ahtman wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:A mans personal life is a reflection of the man. We aren't electing words, we're electing a person.

Alas, I suspect that if it was a potential Democratic candidate's personal life some people would be singing a different tune.

Either way I don't think someone's relationships with their previous wife(wives?) would necessarily dictate what kind of president they would make, one way or the other. Bill Clinton wasn't a bad President and he was, from what I can gather, a bit of a dawg.

I disagree about the Democratic bit. And of course we knew about his womanizing but he was voted in anyway. There is a difference between not knowing and choosing to look past something. Heck, many people probably liked him for being a player. He could do it becuase he was smooth and charismatic. Trump is neither and his philandering seems more like he hired a hooker in comparison. Both are bad but unless it is something more than just screwing around that in and of itself wouldn't keep a candidate from being elected. Newt Gingrich is probably going to run and he is also having to answer for cheating on his wives. His problem, such as Trumps isn't just that he cheated, it is that he has multiple wives and cheated on all of them. Clinton just cheated on the one. They will get more flack for being married more than twice than cheating. Newt's reasoning, and I am not making this up, is that he loves America so much that he was to busy focusing on the business of the people and allowed himself to be tempted. I mean, come one, that is just fantastic.

Holy gak! Please tell me that's true.

'Come back, baby, it's not what it looks like! She means nothing to me! I LOVE AMERICA!'

**mister robouteo**

I Think the lives of public figures cannot be scrutinized like the private lives of people you may know at the office or the bar or the bowling alley in daily life. Political figures are all kind of rock-stars/athletes/movie actors in that they are so much on camera, the public who pretends they know them only gets to see their public facade. Like Dogma said, who knows what the deal is with Bill and Hillary off camera? It could have been a marriage of political convenience and neither one had any illusions of fidelity from the other.

Also, supposedly Bill only cheated on his wife once, versus Donald numerous times, that too is only as far as we know. I forget who it was but there was some hardline crackdown on hookers guy a year or two ago who turned out to be a patron of them. The reason I forget is because none of that matters. We only get a glimpse of a public mask to the real character of these people, not the real person. I wouldn't cheat on my wife either, but I know some who have, as well as some unwed teen mothers, divorcees, and people who are in just plain bad relationships. These things are all potential political character flaws, but in a divorced guy down the street's life or his pregnant teen daughter's life, can be perfectly understandable if you know the full story.

We hold these people to a standard that is just absurd when we look at the failings of ourselves or those around us who's life situations we actually know. Then we wonder why the public figures are all seen as dishonest about their issues?

On that note, I thought it was quite a good play on Obama's part when he was asked about smoking pot. He just dispelled that issue right from the getgo instead of giving the bottom feeders something else to pick at for years to come by saying "yup. I was young. no big deal.. moving along..."

**dogma**

Albatross wrote:
Holy gak! Please tell me that's true.

'Come back, baby, it's not what it looks like! She means nothing to me! I LOVE AMERICA!'

Oh, its true.

Newt Gingrich: “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Monster Rain wrote:I don't see how his personal life should be brought into it.

As long as we don't call him trying to locate evidence of Obama not being born in Hawaii 'personal life'...

Still, I would imagine this plain living lad, who inherited part of his father's 400 million estate and who, despite having all that money, has, on more than one occasion, dragged his corporate ass very close to total insolvency, be entirely what the United States needs to bring it out of recession, now it's already coming out of recession thanks to the actions of the current president, who may or may not have been born in Hawaii, despite official records proving that he was born in Hawaii.

Also, the ticket he's running on, the highly unlikely idea that Obama may have been born on soil not owned by the US... does he and his ardent supporters know that it doesn't matter if Obama was born on fething Vulcan, because his mother was, in life, for all her life, a citizen of the United States and thereby so is her son.

**Monster Rain**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:As long as we don't call him trying to locate evidence of Obama not being born in Hawaii 'personal life'...

I did say that he should drop that...