The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Whether you like him or not, let's all hope that he improves the United States with more & better jobs, and safety for everyone.

I'll be satisfied with no nuclear weapons detonated while he's in office.

i'd be happy with him not handing over US sovereignty to Russia

I'm pretty sure Fau is safe.

As far as the nuclear issue might be a different problem. Just dealing with Russia like Obama has done has put us in an awkward position. President Obama just put troops on Russia's doorstep so Trump will  have to deal with that pretty quickly. He also gave Iran nukes so between them and N Korea one is bound to get stupid sooner or later.

I suppose from a certain standpoint, complete subordination to Russia would be one way to avoid nuclear conflict.
After all, Putin would have no reason to nuke the U.S. if we're a satellite state.

At least Putin has shown not to be reckless with his nuclear arsenal.  So in a sense, we can rest easy knowing that Putin likely will not instruct Trump (or alternatively, give him permission) to set off any nukes.

Climate change was a big issue for me, but there is nothing anybody can do about that.

I just hope his replacement for Obamacare covers the people who needed it. 

As a few have said here over the years. Elections have consequences. Hillary's nomination was the dumbest choice made in a long long long time.

8 years being rejected and having your ass handed to you. Please don't change.

In the aftermath of the Iraq War and the Great Recession, I don't remember anyone saying, "But Al Gore was a terrible candidate!" as justification.
But maybe it will be different this time.

Not sure what you mean by "justification". I was simply pointing out that the Democrats didn't even try. They just threw Hillary in there and "knew" that they would win. That self entitled attitude is what lost the Democrats the election.

The Democrats had many assumptions about this election that turned out to be naive.

Assumptions about any lessons its base learned from 2000.
Assumptions about how much the news media values ratings.
Assumptions about what kinds of statements "disqualify" a candidate in the eyes of the electorate.
Assumptions about the amount of influence federal employees can exert on the outcome if they choose.

But hey, it's all spilled milk at this point.  The right has argued for nearly a decade that the Democrats are terrible and that Obama is the Worst President Ever.
Now you guys have all the levers of power in your grasp.  Let's see if you can do any better than the last time, when you started an unnecessary war on false premises and detonated the economy on your way out.

Who is "you guys" and "you" that I have in bold above? I'll state again for the record. I'm not and never was pro Trump. However, I was very anti Hillary. My picks would have been Carson or Paul(or his father). Aside from that, keeping Hillary out of the White house was the first priority for me. Regardless of what you think, that doesn't make me particularly pro Trump. No one actually wants to take Chemotherapy , however I guess it's better than the alternative. That doesn't automatically make you pro Chemotherapy!

You missed the biggest one of all. That women want a woman president. They don't. At least the majority that I know don't. A LOT of women believe the president SHOULD be a man.

Right wing voters who are celebrating victory.

Then putting Trump in the White House was your preferred option in the general election.
Either that, or you don't understand how our electoral system works.

I haven't heard many people advance the theory that the "biggest" reason Hillary lost is because she's a woman.  In fact, many people are insisting as loudly as they can that Trump's election was NOT about sexism, or racism, or homophobia at all, but economic issues and/or how terrible & corrupt Hillary is.

That's not to say I accept that claim.  But I can't recall a previous instance of someone saying, "Oh yeah, the biggest reason Trump won was sexism," without intending that comment to be a disparagement of Trump voters.

Biggest reason Trump won is the same reason Adams won in 1824, Hayes in 1876, Harrison in 1888 and Bush in 2000, we DONT HAVE A DEMOCRAY.  Over a million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Trump, the majority of Americans who voted would rather she was president. 

Anyone who thinks most people support Trump is dillusional. 

The number is 3 million more... not that it matters.

The rules are the rules.  The fact that someone as unqualified as Trump can even make it to the general, much less be competitive in enough states to even make it close, says more than enough about our country.  All of the idiots who voted for Trump while thinking that he wouldn't repeal Obamacare that they depend on (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-voters-didnt-take-him-literally-on-obamacare-oops/2016/12/20/46ef3cae-c6f3-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?utm_term=.6b9dbb6ab4ab) or that he wouldn't gut Planned Parenthood (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/17/planned-parenthood-trump-gop-abortion-column/96618992/) need to be shown that elections have consequences.

That's not to say that all Trump voters are idiots; many of them voted in their own legitimate interests, and want him to do exactly what he said.  But this phenomenon of people not voting for Hillary because "she says she'll protect these programs but I don't believe her," and instead voting for Trump because "he says he'll DESTROY these programs but I don't believe him"... these people need to be punished with the outcome they voted for.

If you wanted Trump to build a wall, kick out the Muslims, and end Obamacare, fine; vote your interests.  But this nonsense about "I voted for him but I didn't think he would do what he said" cannot be allowed to continue.  It is a cancer on our democracy that needs to be burned away as soon as possible.

More people ... no. More parts of the country absolutely supported Trump. No one wants California, New York and Texas to dictate to the rest of America how to live and that's exactly why our forefathers came up with the process. If you don't agree with it then you probably don't understand it. We were built on state's rights but people want to the federal government to force everyone to live the same. Bigger government to force more laws.   

The truth is most of the country (land wise) wanted a change and that is how our system works.

It's funny that if the situation was reversed. The people complaining about the Electoral College right now wouldn't be saying shit. They would be happy as hell with the Electoral College system if Hillary won. That's why you can't take any of them seriously.

Votes are cast by people, not land.  More people wanted Hillary to be President.  Full stop.

No, it does not work "land wise," otherwise Alaska would determine the outcome of nearly every Presidential election.

I don't know what hypothetical form of government is determined by land (especially since land doesn't vote) but it certainly isn't a democracy (or a republic).

That's an interesting theory... but in order to test it, the Republicans would have to actually win the popular vote, something they have managed to do only once since the fall of the Soviet Union almost 30 years ago.  So I guess it will remain a hypothetical!

To add on to the above: the Democrats in Congress - both the House and the Senate - received more votes than the Republicans (and have for several cycles), even though the Republicans are in control.  The reason why Republicans control all three branches is not because "more people" voted for them.  It is quite literally because some peoples' votes count less than others, which is precisely how our system was set up.

Now, as I've already said, the rules are the rules: we knew what they were before the election.  But don't try to spin some nonsense about how "more land wanted a change" or whatever.  The plain and simple fact is that the majority of American voters DO NOT want Republicans in power, but our system does not value the votes of all citizens equally.  If you live in a low population rural state, or if you live in a state with a close ratio of left-wing and right-wing voters, your vote is worth much more than the vote of a person that lives in a more populous, more ideologically aligned state.

So true it's funny...

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-twitter-obama-election-rigged-results-2016-10

Actually when a pre election poll in 2004 suggested that it was possible Kerry could win the election but lose the popular vote I was actively rooting for such a result with the hope that it happening twice in a row in opposite directions we might get the political will to correct the injustice. 

When it only happens in one direction it will never get fixed.  I wish Obama had lost the popular vote, then we might have gotten the amendment we should have gotten after 2000.

To add to the hilarity just picture spideys avatar in place of trumps face.

I never said it was a popular notion, but I think it's been blatantly overlooked because no one really wants to believe it. But the fact is that many are just not ready to have a woman president and a lot of those people are women. Hillary wasn't even that popular among women. Let that sink in for a moment. How many African Americans didn't get behind Obama when he ran? Hillary didn't do anywhere near as well with women. Think about that. Who gives the African American man a run for his money for being discriminated against? Women of all race. They're more discriminated against then men of any race. I didn't recognize it right away at first either but as I became more aware that Trump might still win despite the fact that he's pure scum, I had to reconsider how this could be happening and it hit me. This presidential race wasn't just Trump against Clinton, it was also man against woman and woman regardless of being the better candidate lost.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

We can complain all we want about whether the Electoral College system works, or more importantly about how some individuals' votes matter more because of the state they live in; BUT if we didn't have the system we have there wouldn't be 50 United States, because most of the small less populous states that would be screwed by NY, CA, & Texas would secede from the Union.  Not to mention vast swaths of the middle of the country would do so also.

Another option is that you don't have to do away with the Electoral College, States could simply change the way they award the electors.  All States, except Maine & Nebraska, award them on a winner take all basis, if States allotted the electors based on the populous vote in the State there may be a different outcome.  Then maybe a handful of States (Ohio, PA, FLA, etc) wouldn't be determining the winner.

I agree with you Pappy, in that it was a partial factor in why Hillary lost.  The Republicans aren't going to say it though, and the Democrats won't admit it (but I bet the polling numbers showed women didn't come out for Hillary as much as they thought they would).

I'm not saying it was the biggest reason she lost, but I think it was the biggest mistake the Democratic party made when considering her as a candidate. I think they thought she would do overwhelming well with women and she didn't. I just don't see a woman becoming President for a very long time. If a woman couldn't win against Trump who is a woman going to be able to defeat? Another woman is about the only way I see it happening.

I'm not sure I agree with you completely. I think Trump was the main reason they thought she was going to do well with women. If I recall, hasn't there always been a knock on Hillary's popularity among women voters (Didn't Obama do better in their primaries). We discussed before who the Dems could have put up to beat Trump and most of us concluded that he was winning this election no matter what.

Her problem was NOT women she beat Trump by 14%.  This election had the largest gender gap since 1952.

Problem was turnout.  It was a 20 year low.  Neither had wide support.  People voted for Obama and people voted for Romney.  This election people voted against Trump and people voted against Clinton.

A significant number of people viewed them as the two worse candidates to be bominated.  He got more turnout among those who thought he was the second worse than she did among those who thought she was the second worse. 

Not surprising actually given that in suberban and rural areas typically have short lines for the polls, but cities have long lines.  I would have stood in a 2 hour line to vote for Obama but not Clinton.  I live in the burbs so my wait time was only a minute so I did vote.

White women went 53% for Trump.

White women tend to lean Republican.

No doubt.

But if we're going to talk about how women are more discriminated against than men of any race, let's not lose sight of the fact that while Trump lost a historically high percentage of the vote from all women, the majority of white women still voted for him (which gives you an idea of what non-white women tend to think of him).

As I just cited, there is a non-insignificant number of people who, even though Trump was actively promising to take action that would DRASTICALLY hurt them (repealing Obamacare), convinced themselves that he's not going to do what he says and voted for him anyway.  So if these voters can rationalize away a direct pledge of severe suffering for themselves, how hard is it going to be for them to rationalize away severe suffering for other people (immigrants, Muslims)?  Not very.

As long as the Obamacare repeal doesn't affect the Affordable Care Act, I'm all for it.

keep your government hands off of my Medicare

That's not why the electoral college works how it does.  The general idea is to keep population centers from hogging all of the political interest.  ...like farming, specifically.  We need farming in NYC, but it's not something that politicians would focus on.  They'd spend all of their message pushing the population-center agendas.  ...which could hurt everyone.

Whether or not that system still works as intended is a different question.

Severe suffering? Can we lighten up on the hyperbole and rhetoric? Or can we at least wait until your so called "severe suffering" begins? For gods sake, Obama's last fart hasn't even cleared out of the Oval Office yet...

Trump has promised to repeal Obamacare, ban all Muslims, and deport over 10 million people.
I am simply taking the man at his word.

Trump has said he wants to keep some parts of the ACA, we'll just have to wait until the law is passed to see what's in it. ::)  Regarding a Muslim ban, he has said he wants to suspend immigration from Muslim Countries where there is terrorism.  It is not a blanket ban on a religion, but more about countries that support terrorism.  As for deportation it's somewhere between 2 and 3 million, but even those are impossible numbers to deport.  The key is that he wants to start by deporting gang members, drug dealers, and people that commit violent crimes; sorry but I'm all for deporting these individuals.

Direct quote:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
That is a blanket ban on religion.

It's been over a year and people are still trying to insist that he doesn't mean what he said.  A blanket ban on religion was his campaign promise, and a blanket ban on religion is what his voters voted for.  If you claim otherwise, you are lumped in with the pile of people who insist that they didn't actually expect him to do what he said; i.e. they voted for him precisely because they thought he was lying.

You are simply making up things or going along with liberal rhetoric. Either way you are wrong and a part of the hysteria.

Hillary won 21 states and Trump 29. We are a country of states. In no scenario should 21 be dictating what 29 are doing.

Hahahaha ....some of the biggest whores in the world are calling out Trump for being a sexist pig and people are acting like they are justified in walking around dressed as pussies or signs about pussy. I love the fact Jenna Jameson called out hypocritical Bill Maher.  Most public people protesting are nothing more than hypocrites or even worse.

He's clarified that dozens of times including the day after but you already know that. Not that you care because it doesn't fit your agenda.

He has already has done it and it's not all Muslims as you have been trying to say.

Newly inaugurated President Trump is reportedly moving quickly to fulfill one of the more controversial promises he made during the campaign: to restrict immigration from Muslim countries.

Reuters reports several congressional aides and immigration experts have confirmed that Trump is expected to sign into law executive orders that would restrict such immigration on Wednesday.

They report the following countries on the expected list of restricted nations: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Refugees and VISA holders from these countries will have their access to the United States barred or restricted by the orders.

Trump’s policy was at first called a ban on Muslim immigration, but was later refined into a ban on immigrants from Muslim countries. This has not impeded the criticism and scrutiny the policy has fallen under by detractors who call it “racist” and even compare it to acts committed by Hitler in Germany.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/24/breaking-trump-executive-orders-expected-to-restrict-immigration-from-muslim-countries/

So first you say we decide by land, and now you're saying we decide by states.  Gerald Ford won more states than Jimmy Carter, and yet he did not win the election.

Why is it so hard for you to simply accept that the majority of people who voted didn't want Trump?  Why are you trying to do these end arounds about land area or interstate borders?  The majority of voters - by a significant margin - wanted Hillary to be President over Trump, but he was elected because some votes are more equal than others.  That is the way our system is designed, and Trump won playing by the rules of that system; rules that we all knew ahead of time.

This is not a complaint or an attempt to claim that he should not be President; he won according to the rules.  But for you to continually deny the basic facts - that way more people voted for Hillary than for Trump - is, well, Trumpian.

Sure would have been useful to hear about how useless and hypocritical protesting is around April 2009!

Another broken campaign promise from a lying politician.  I'd ask if you are upset, but apparently you guys expected that he was lying the whole time.

Let us be perfectly clear about where that quote I pulled was from: it is from a campaign statement that is STILL on his campaign website (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration).  It is an explicit campaign promise that was valid on Election Day.  But you want to act like liberals are crazy for taking him at his never retracted, still declared word.

And one more thing about what Trump "clarified after the fact":

Trump is a liar who took countless contradictory positions during the campaign.  You propose that we should take the most convenient of his contradictory positions - depending on what the argument is at that exact moment - and take it to completely override all his other statements.  I flatly reject this idea.

For example, when Trump pretended (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-david-duke-amnesia/) like he didn't know who David Duke is, and then later said that oh yeah he totally denounces David Duke, the second thing does not cancel out the first.  The fact that Trump was willing to make a political calculation to avoid offending white supremacists, in and of itself, speaks to his character.  In other words, he wasn't willing to reject the KKK vote without FIRST talking to his people and checking whether that was going to hurt him more than NOT rejecting it.

You don't get to say, "I don't know if slavery was a good or bad thing," and then later say, "On second thought, yeah, slavery was definitely a bad idea."

Hahaha ... Is there anything you won't exaggerate to continue an argument?

If that isn't clear as mud.

Trump hasn't been shot yet?

Damn, alright...I'll check back in about a month.

I will say that I'm impressed with how much he's doing what he said.  I thought that was all bullshit posturing to get elected. 

We won't be seeing Sunstroke for a month because he is now under SS investigation.

All joking aside, I hope Trump lives to the age of 90.  Like Joe Paterno, I want him to be alive when his name turns to ash.  I want him to see his (adult) children shunned for their involvement with his regime.  This is the most appropriate form of justice that can be served to him.

Such as?

"SS investigation" is now a double entendre.

So you have already deemed him a failure? Seems like you want him to fail so that you can be "right".

14% is HORRIBLE. She should have beat him by 50% with women considering the man she was running against. If she would have she might have won the election.

Based on his strategy of overt appeals to racism and xenophobia to win the election, I have "already deemed him" a horrible person and one of the worst Presidents in the history of the republic.  And even if he does make the trains run on time, that will not change the kind of campaign he ran.  David Duke might have really great trade policies; I can't say I give a damn.

The most surprising part of Trump's election, for me, is there is no such thing as a dealbreaker for a wide swath of American voters.  Over the course of the campaign, Trump denigrated a POW for being captured, bragged about his penis size in a Presidential debate, insisted that an Indiana-born judge was unfit to preside based on his race, pledged to implement a religious test as a condition for entry into the U.S., made fun of a disabled reporter, promised to pay the legal fees of people who beat up protesters at his rallies, questioned the motives of a Gold Star family, asked Russia to hack a major party U.S. Presidential candidate, and admitted on tape to sexually assaulting women.  And the response from many voters was, "But I really like what he's saying about the manufacturing sector."

(That's assuming we are going with the charitable, media-friendly explanation for the 2016 results, and not the "It's a feature, not a bug" explanation.)

Like having Mexico pay for the wall?

In a landslide election that he won by 8 points nationally, Obama beat McCain with women by 13%, 1 point worse than Hillary did against Trump.  He beat Romney with women by 11%.

And Obama didn't have the FBI announce (and then immediately cancel) an investigation 2 weeks before the election.

You can aim for justice...I prefer to just spare the country 4 years of the orange moron muppet.

A Trump assassination would be significantly worse than anything short of nuclear war.  I believe there is a not-significant chance it would set off a second Civil War.

Now that I say it, I'm actually somewhat concerned that Putin might see this as a way to complete his destabilization-of-America project.  Normally, I'd say our intelligence community has 60-some-odd years of experience at stopping the Russians from attempting to assassinate a President... but Trump thinks the intelligence community is a bunch of incompetents who are unfairly blaming Russia for interfering in his glorious victory.

4 more years of this nonsense.

I thought that a lot of the promises were things he didn't really care about or knew weren't feasible, but was just saying to rile up his crowds: the wall, abortion, Muslim registry, voter fraud, among other things.

But it appears that he's at least making an attempt to move each of these things ahead.

I figured he was mostly concerned with trade deals and that's where he'd spend most of his effort.

I don't want Trump to be shot in office.  But I am rooting for a swift impeachment.

I don't want that either, really. 

There are things that he's doing that, frankly, I hope he fails at.  I think that, even if they effective, that they send the wrong message about the country.  But other things, I may not think are smart, but hope they work out.

I really hope he can get some trade deals in place that make sense, if that's his big thing.

But impeachment would bail out the GOP.  I want them to own this forever.

And the other shoe drops:

President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees (http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees)

In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, President Donald Trump says persecuted Christians will be given priority when it comes to applying for refugee status in the United States. “We are going to help them,” President Trump tells CBN News. “They’ve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair.”

So then: it's a ban on everyone from the Muslim countries... except Christians, who will not only be allowed to enter, but will also be given priority over other refugees.

This is a ban on Muslims.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem angry man? Afghanistan as well as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not on the list as well as others. Besides that any Muslim from any other country like England, Canada, Spain, and France are free to come and go as they please.

...or Christians from any country.

That's how religious bans work, after all.

We have enough people here anyhow. We should permanently shut down all applications for new citizens of all religions until further notice. We should stop being the worlds dumping ground. Let them fix their own countries. If we keep this silly stuff going, overcrowding will eventually be a problem. 

Maybe we should replace "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" with "Let them fix their own countries."

USA! USA!

While I would not agree with such a policy, a blanket ban on all immigrants would not run afoul with the constitution like Trumps policy of having a religious test for immigrants.

Hmmm travel ban,and the joints chiefs of staff not attending meetings,being pushed aside...I feel less safe actually.

Oblivious the Joints chiefs of staff were using too big of words for comrade orange asshat...Then refused to to the words Terrific,Amazing,Huge,your're greatest,and all the people love you during briefings when talking to him.. ::)

Yes, I agree with your idea. It would fix a lot of our problems. Also, cut off all the money we give to other countries for nothing.

The history of the USA is, if nothing else, an unending cycle of descendants of immigrants insisting that we have enough people already and it's time to close the doors to the flood of undesirables that are arriving these days.

Luckily, these voices have always largely been ignored.

Unfortunately, these are more dangerous times than in the past. Our horrible foreign policy mixed with radical religions have made some of the world hate us.

From my point of view, it's not only about danger from undesirables. There will eventually be an issue with overcrowding and resources. Also, if people can just come here when they don't like the situation in their homeland. Where is their incentive to fix their own country? 

These are objectively LESS dangerous times than the forty years following World War 2.

Any complaints about "overcrowding" vastly underestimates the amount of the United States that is empty wilderness.  And as far as coming here instead of staying home and fixing their own country: any U.S. citizen who is not a) Native American or b) a descendant of slaves is in the USA today because their ancestors chose to come here instead of fixing their own country.  That is kind of the major point of this country.

Yes, lets make every square mile of the country into an urban ghetto metropolis. Also, as you say,the major point of this country, cannot continue forever like that. Just like the national debt can't continue. On both issues, there will eventually be a tipping point of no return and the country will be ruined. Just like the fall of Rome. I'm sorry that you don't see any issues with the problems that will eventually plague this country.

We don't need to be developing our virgin forests and woods Spider. Personally, overcrowding is already an issue for the Earth in general as I see it.

Over the first 225 years of this nation's existence, we have developed less than 5% of the total land area (http://thevane.gawker.com/these-simple-maps-show-how-little-of-the-united-states-1593448044).

So I think we still have quite a bit of time remaining before we are in danger of turning every square mile of the country into an urban ghetto metropolis.

We also can't continue letting people have 4+ kids "forever," but I don't see anyone calling for a limitation on the number of kids per family.

In fact, it's funny how the people worried about immigrants overpopulating our country are largely the same people that believe in outlawing abortion.

And for those insisting "it's not a ban!", you have been undone by Dear Leader (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051) (emphasis added):

If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!

You'd better get accustomed to his inability to stay "on message."  Remember, one of the reasons you voted for him was because he's not politically correct; he isn't going to fall in line with your attempts to rebrand policies into the traditionally acceptable dog whistles.  He'll straight up call this a "ban," just like he calls enhanced interrogation "torture" without blinking.

Classic deflection at its finest, congratulations...

You are claiming that we need to be worried about running out of land, lest we make "every square mile of the country into an urban ghetto metropolis."
I pointed out that such a position is inconsistent with an unlimited-children policy.
That isn't deflecting; it's pointing out faulty logic.

Kind of like how we supposedly need to be very worried about the national debt... except when it's time to cut taxes or buy some new aircraft carriers.  I know, I know, I'm deflecting again!

edit: Since the anti-abortion crowd believes abortion is murder, it is unfair to include that with other population control methods.  I retract that statement.

So because people here can have unlimited children, somehow that relates to allowing other countries to dump their citizens here. The only faulty logic being used is by you. The two have nothing to do with one another. And even if they did, wide open borders pretty much compounds the problem by 2-3 times. And that doesn't even address the security issues.

Finally there is something, anything I can agree with the POTUS on.......Roger G is a dope.

This man is a national disgrace.  Conservative or not, anyone who can't see that at this point is too far gone.  The GOP will probably dump him once they squeeze through that Supreme Court seat.

They don't need him for that.  They will let him simmer for a few months, he needs to do something worse than what he has done so far to have cover for the impeachment.  As for the forthcoming comment that republicans won't impeach him....ask yourself this...what percentage of Republican senators and Reps would in a straight up choice pick Trump over Pence?

I thought the prospect of war with Mexico ended in the 19th century, but here we are.

I am not worried about us going to war with Mexico.  I am worried about the depression that we will have over a trade war.

I predicted this in an earlier thread or two. A depression is coming regardless of who the president is. The Federal Reserve and prior administration have more that guaranteed that fact. The economy and markets are fake and have been propped up far too long on low rates and cheap money. When you do that you'll eventually have to pay the piper.

The only reason that I would have wanted to see Hillary in the White House would have been to see who the liberals would have blamed for said upcoming financial collapse. Since Bush would be 3 terms removed, they would have had to blame Hillary or Obama. But since Trump is in office he will get the blame. However, make no mistake, our economy has no foundation and will crumble eventually with or without Trump.

Setting aside the fact that Trump campaigned on the idea that the economy is already in tatters now, I fundamentally agree with your prediction: we did not adequately repair the dam in 2009 and we're just waiting for the next flood.

The primary difference, as I see it, is that while the corporatist wing of the Democrats won't do much to fix the dam and will eventually let it crumble due to lack of maintenance, the GOP diverts extra rivers into the dam while swinging pickaxes at it.  So you'll always be more likely to have it crash while a Republican is in office, because the GOP tends to turbocharge the factors that cause collapses (read: deregulation).

At the end of the day basically you'll have the same result. So it's Trumps fault, but not really...

I wouldn't really say it's the same result.  Having a major market crash every 50 years is a significantly better outcome than a major market crash every 20 years.

So I guess you actually do disagree with my assessment that it's going to crash regardless of whether Trump, Hillary, or Bernie are in office? And actually, in my opinion, it has to crash in order for us to fix it.

I do think it will crash regardless; the difference is the timeframe.

For example, Trump just announced (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html?_r=0) that he's going to dismantle Dodd-Frank, which was itself an example of the kind of insufficiently-aggressive Democratic fix that I was talking about (we needed to go back to Glass-Steagall).  However, removing Dodd-Frank will just accelerate the next crash.

So in other words, we might optimistically be able to go another 20 years before a crash with Dodd-Frank as the primary regulation, but without Dodd-Frank we won't even make it 10 years before the banksters detonate the economy again.

I think that's a bit naive. I'm thinking more along the lines of the next 5 years, probably less, regardless of any decisions made by anyone. The sooner the better if you ask me. It's like a junkie. The sooner we remove the "fix". The sooner we can go through the withdrawal(the crash). The sooner we can build a real economic recovery. The longer you kick the can down the road, the harder it's going to be to fix. But then again, I'm an idiot, so I'm just talking crazy!!!

any crash now will be Traump's crash .. that's how it'll go down guaranteed

You have no idea how much this hurts me after hearing about the recent setbacks in regulation on coal mine sludge dumping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_flood

It might be time for a reminder of what happened the last time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act) we combined widespread deregulation with stiff trade tariffs.

I wouldn't initially think Trump would be able to get a tariff through Congress, but I'm also not dumb enough to believe that there exists a hill that Republicans in Congress would choose to die on if it meant opposing him.  The most terrifying outcome for them is not Muslim concentration camps or the government imprisoning the media; it's losing a primary because they were labeled a RINO moderate.