Hmmm, the beauty about us speculators is that we love to speculate. I enjoy your analysis, and agree with the majority of what you have said....but I'm curious, why do you think Trump can get elected, if he decides to run?
All I know, if the Dem and Rep Party is afraid of him...I think it's a good thing for the country....America is getting tired of these "career politicians."
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." --- "Therefore, I Believe it and I will see it. And every day and in every way, I am healthier, wealthier, and wiser."
2) As much money as Trump has, he would not be able to raise a 10th of what they're projecting Obama to muster (over $1BN this time around).
3) Trump would have to get into bed with Corporate America to have ANY sort of chance to offset the power of the Unions in favor of Obama.
All in all, if you don't believe me, just do a search for "vegas odds" or "odds" on each candidate winning, bookies will handicap just about anything.
All Trump would do is serve to fracture the election and make it more dicey for one of the 2 major parties.
Recent history tells us that Nader, Forbes, Perot, etc, all garnered considerable support, but people are more likely to vote for one of the 2 major parties because as I said in an earlier thread, it's not about voting for the candidate you want, it's about voting AGAINST the candidate you don't want. Thus, even if someone favors Trump, the GOP candidate and Obama (in that order), they're more likely to vote GOP simply because they may not get the candidate they want, but at least they'll have a realistic shot at affecting the outcome by helping to defeat the candidate that they DON'T want.
That's exactly why Nader went down in flames both times. I'm sure there were people that favored him, but thought casting a vote his way made their vote irrelevant.
Gosh, I think we come from two very different worlds. I couldn't imagine some of the things you said creeping back into my head.
Somebody said something interesting like limiting terms for politicians. I think that is a VERY good idea. Make the term a bit longer (so they can get their feet wet) but make them a one-shot-one-kill chance. Get rid of all the benefits and all that and get them to actually WORK WORK WORK!
In my opinion everyone seems focused on the President. While we have a corrupt Judicial side as well as Congress is severely flawed.
I suggest everyone from one side of a perspective spend time on the other side. I believe that is the only way that things move in a positive direction. Too often we surround ourselves with people who think alike, and get ourselves even more charged up thinking we are right.
You analysis is good in my opinion, but unsustainable. I have to be honest, that I would not want to live in the country you guys are pushing for... I do like Ron Paul though, but I think his chances are 1%?
I should say I am just talking about the logic of your statement. Let us take a look at your example of the TSA.
 Would the TSA be affected by a government shutdown if he debt ceiling is not raised. NO
 Could the TSA expand if the government is shutdown by not raising the debt ceiling ? YES
So your case of raising the debt ceiling has no actual affect on the TSA.
Then you mention the 'current' administration and a possible Trump administration. I don't see the relationship here. The TSA was started in 2001 under bush and has had tons of problems over the years. Here an article from Ron Paul back in 2004.
You did not seem to give a reason WHY you believe the Trump administration would be better. But 7 years of a Bush administration and and two years of an Obama administration have not yielded an organization as efficient as Israeli airport security. Maybe Trump could do a better job, I don't know.
Anyway, I am a very logical person and I am just looking at the logical argument which does not happen much on the internet.
Most Americans lack the ability to do "root cause analysis."
If you want to know why that 6 year old little girl went through that, ask the ACLU and liberals.
It's liberal policy that drives that.
How? Because if it weren't for overzelous and fanatical organizations like the ACLU, we'd be able to use common sense and profiling in our law enforcement efforts.
When was the last time that a 6 year old girl, or an 80 year old person, or a woman even, tried to hijack or terrorize using an aircraft?
Maybe the NSA/CIA/FBI had some sort of credible evidence that supports a threat. But that's a wild stretch.
The reality is, we cannot simply focus our security efforts and maximize our bang/buck, because of lawsuits by liberal idiots who denounce "racial profiling" or profiling altogether.
Imagine how much more effective it would be if we could simply focus the security screenings on males from 15-50?
You could eliminate 50% of the burden alone by excluding children and the elderly.
Don't get me wrong, I support ACLU endeavors...and I realize that without them, we'd live in a much more oppressive nation, but again, like most things, there's a COST to our civility....
And I'm not certain that we're reaching the tipping point with respect to cost/benefit.
So until we can collectively grasp these delicate/sensitive issues like profiling in law enforcement, we'll continue to endure ridiculous things like little girls getting body searched before they get onto an aircraft. (and the taxpayer paying for the inefficiency).
The following user says Thank You to RM99 for this post: