Trump and Palin in ’12. That’s the ticket!

Property magnate and reality TV star Donald Trump on Thursday strung out a media tease over whether he will run for U.S. president by setting a — tentative — date for announcing a date for announcing his decision.

Trump said in a statement he may declare when he will declare whether he will seek the Republican candidacy on network television during the May 22 season finale for his reality TV show “The Celebrity Apprentice,” which airs on NBC.

Would vote for Donald Trump for President?

View Results
Create a Poll




  1. Dallas says:

    #32 Alf, Bush was CEO of Spectrum 7 (which he fucked over losing millions). You voted for him (twice). So much for your theory.

    I’m sure you’re a patriot so do the country a favor and don’t vote. You’ve already done enough damage to the country and to your family and three friends.

  2. foobar says:

    And on another note, have you noticed how Americans have lost their sense of humor?

  3. MikeN says:

    Obama is scared of what Trump is going to uncover in his research in Hawaii. So now he has directed the left to unload on him, hence today’s 2 minute hate.

  4. Uncle Patso says:

    Not only no, but HELL NO!

    Trump is the perfect example of the kind of asshole who demands respect and loyalty without exception, without returning any and without deserving any. Unlike most military officers I have known, who realized that one must know how to follow orders before one is qualified to give them, he thinks he deserves to be the Top Dog just because he inherited some money and managed to make some along the way. Even a blind squirrel finds a buried nut occasionally.

    Businessmen think they can come into office and magically straighten everything out by yelling at people. Just try that with the 535 members of Congress and see how far that gets you. I’m sorry, that just won’t work. You can’t herd cats by yelling at them, and you can’t fire them.

    Success in politics requires someone who can _earn_ respect and loyalty from other fiercely independent, strongly opinionated types, which you certainly don’t get by throwing tantrums, yelling and firing people. In short, it requires a POLITICIAN.

    I’ve known some politicians. Some politicians have been friends of mine. Donald Trump is no politician.

  5. Guyver says:

    21, Bobbo,

    And I remembered my “killer” question you have failed to answer 3 times now, so I hereby pledge to keep posting it until you answer it.

    and with reference to setting the basis of your skepticism regarding AGW: “Guyver–hypothetically, what would constitute “proof” to you that should be acted on?

    Wow! I’m flattered. You’re tracking me. 🙂

    I’ve answered your questions three times already. You just don’t like the answers because they’re too direct. You either prove causality or you make predictions based off your assumptions of causality whereby the outcomes are as predicted 5 to 10 years out.

    Or even “non proof” that should be acted on?”

    Curious Modelers want to know.

    Your “best science” responses revolve around 100+ year predictions. If you can’t prove your premise, is there a problem? Should you coerce change if the sky isn’t falling?

    You’re trying to promote a solution looking for a problem. Modeling isn’t science. It’s an abstraction of what assumptions we make based on what we believe to be “the truth”.

    The problem is, you don’t even know what the truth is over the root cause. Sure you may BELIEVE you know… but you don’t. The “best science” can quantify human CO2 output, but the “best science” can’t prove it’s the root cause of a “problem” that could otherwise be a product of mother nature. Man-made global warming is a THEORY and not a fact.

    Does that mean you shouldn’t foster or encourage people to be better stewards of the environment? Absolutely not. Does this mean we should force people to change their lifestyles and be forced to pay higher taxes so that the general masses have a lower quality of life based on a political agenda? Nope.

    Prove causality or make predictions that doesn’t require my being six feet under. Otherwise, it’s much ado about nothing whereby you’re trying to promote your “scientific” political theory as somehow being “scientific” law.

    Let me say it again, because you’re having a hard time understanding.

    Prove causality or make 5 to 10 year predictions based off of past TRENDS. You liberals do make a stink about the trends, don’t you? How about actually using those trends rather than using it as a form of rhetoric?

  6. Guyver says:

    29, Bobbo,

    constantly failing the logic trap: All conservatives are hypocritical f*cktards, but not all hypocritical f*cktards are conservatives.

    Speaking of hypocrites: http://tinyurl.com/66e5snx

  7. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. says:

    #41–Guyver==if I was tracking you, I would have remembered right off the bat. No, I just happen to pay attention. But so have you. I recall that response from you, but it is so limited/aka wrong that it dropped out of my consideration. I apologize.

    My memory, and if not my conclusion now, is that you can’t ask a theory that on its own terms is limited to a 50 year “trend” projection to give a “consistent with the model” response in 10 years.

    Also very much goes to what you think “a prediction” is? that the world will get warmer? THAT is happening. That the worlds permafrost will reduce? THAT is happening. That the oceans will rise? THAT is happening.

    BUT AS I SCHOOLED YOU: models can’t prove anything. There is no proof as there is no control group. The best you have, the best you can theoretically have, is “the best science we have indicates……” and even with 100% accuracy in whatever you want to call a prediction, the result is still only a statistical correlation: not proof.

    As to Obama’s hypocrisy: Good. Its 2.5 years late in showing up. I hope he logarithmically increases it daily until ballot day in 2012. Then he might satisfy my progressive hopes and dreams.

  8. Guyver says:

    43, Bobbo,

    My memory, and if not my conclusion now, is that you can’t ask a theory that on its own terms is limited to a 50 year “trend” projection to give a “consistent with the model” response in 10 years

    Go back however far back you need to make a 5 to 10 year prediction feasible. Although, scientists back in the 1970s were worried about Global Cooling.

    Also very much goes to what you think “a prediction” is?

    We have many years of QUANTIFIED human CO2 output. People who claim that human CO2 output is actually the root cause of global warming SHOULD be able to derive a function to determine output for things such as average global temps or other things.

    that the world will get warmer? THAT is happening. That the worlds permafrost will reduce? THAT is happening. That the oceans will rise? THAT is happening.

    Due to what root cause? Mother nature or human CO2 output? I’m not dismissing ANY of the observations you’re stating. I am asking what is the source of all this. I’m okay with you promoting your theory… I do think anyone promoting that theory as law in the absence of empirical evidence or inability to make accurate predictions as being very hasty.

    BUT AS I SCHOOLED YOU: models can’t prove anything.

    LOL. No you didn’t school me on this. This has been my major gripe with the IPCC models since the beginning. It isn’t science.

    The best you have, the best you can theoretically have, is “the best science we have indicates……” and even with 100% accuracy in whatever you want to call a prediction, the result is still only a statistical correlation: not proof.

    Two KEY words: Theoretically and Correlation.

    Theory is not Law. Correlation is not Causation.

    Should you coerce the masses to change if you cannot prove causation or something is nothing more than a theory? Is there REALLY a problem?

    I have a theory that flatulence is actually the root cause of man-made global warming. Should we force everyone to wear butt plugs? How about increasing the taxes on foods that promote the generation of methane?

    Until I can prove this theory is actually true, I propose we force everyone to change their lifestyle just in case the theory is actually right. It never hurts to force change, right?

    As to Obama’s hypocrisy: Good. Its 2.5 years late in showing up. I hope he logarithmically increases it daily until ballot day in 2012. Then he might satisfy my progressive hopes and dreams.

    I just hope enough people wake up and smell the coffee to make him a one-term president.

    No country has reached greatness due to progressivism or liberalism. Capitalism is the key to prosperity.

    http://tinyurl.com/2tcq2s

  9. Ah_Yea says:

    Here is a good read on Obama’s chance for 2012.

    Smart and coherent. Unlike the liberal bloggers here.

    Wall Street Journal, “Obama Is Likely to Lose”
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116404576263411383190464.html

  10. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. says:

    #44–Guyver:

    1. “Go back however far back you need to make a 5 to 10 year prediction feasible.” /// Knock, Knock. Heeellllooooo????? “Going Back” on an organization founded in 1988 with the models being developed after that? You just make shit up and don’t really know what you are talking about. Silly. Once==how about it? Admit you blew this argument???? Lets see you admit to the truth once?

    2. AGW vs GW. You agree on GW. Good for you. Too many “best science available” deniers won’t even do that. I expect your position will morph to this as you get more heat. ((Ha, ha. Yes, just for myself.)) You are correct that AGW may be no more than GW but with all the expertise being marshalled for the IPCC models, that review and concentrated talent review hasn’t identified any other natural processes which certainly is part of their model building responsibility. Hypo’s have been thrown out there and all debunked. ((sic–for those that “know” I’m not going there.))

    3..”LOL. No you didn’t school me on this. This has been my major gripe with the IPCC models since the beginning. It isn’t science.” /// Of course it is “science.” Don’t (intentionally?) confuse/replace/flip “best science available” with “scientific proof.” If its not science, then what is it? astrology? Pure cap and trade smoke and mirrors? What? There is no proof there will be tomorrow. Want to place a bet? I’ll give you odds. aka==quit being a purposeful dumbshit.

    4. Flatulence. Wasn’t there that study about cow farts being more impactful than automobiles (not to be conflated with other transportation modes). And since “its not science” I guess measuring the amount of flatus times the number of cows and people is also not science. And devloping feed sources that produce less methane is also not science. Everything is NOT SCIENCE! Is that about right bunky?

    5. “No country has reached greatness due to progressivism or liberalism. Capitalism is the key to prosperity.” //// Feel good? Ha, ha. Same reason I call you a dumbshit. Feels good. Probably not the best argument? I crack myself up.

  11. Azure Twine says:

    #39
    Really? So if I were to research your birth would I find one of these so-called long certificates?

    I gotta tell ya, my “official” birth certificate isn’t that long and does not have much detail on it. Certainly not my footprint. Also, my children who were born here (one in a military hospital) don;t have much detail on theirs either and no footprint. I have no idea what state you all think requires prints, maybe it’s a newer thing. And Hawaii is notorious for bad record keeping. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t legally born there it means they were not as established a state as say New York.

    These birthers are just racists wrapped up in the Constitution to try and prove they aren’t. The minute Obama stepped into the oval office their little racists hearts sank and they have been dogging him ever since. The good old days sucked and women aren’t going to stand for their rights being stepped on either.

  12. Ah_Yea says:

    The bad news just keeps on coming!

    “Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed.

    Those startling figures are based on the average recovery rate of real GDP and jobs three years after the beginning of each postwar recession. Some apologists suggest that the current recovery is so weak because the recession was so deep. But the totality of our experience in the postwar period is exactly the opposite—the bigger the bust, the bigger the boom that follows. .. The recovery is being stifled by the unprecedented policy changes undertaken by this administration and the previous Congress. Whether in absolute or relative terms, whether in comparison to our own experience or the performance of our competitors, America’s wealth-producing ability has been diminished.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983104576262763594126624.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle

  13. Ah_Yea says:

    I bet even Donald Trump knows these above stated facts.

    I bet even Donald Duck knows these above stated facts.

  14. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. says:

    Hey Ah Yea==you really are getting malignant. Any trash talk will do heh? Ha, ha.

    But now, I’ll actually go read the article.

    YOU KNOW Ah Yea, its all about tipping points: how many jobs can be exported before a market downturn results in a jobless recovery?

    Blaming Obama?==why? because he didn’t make the stimulus LARGE ENOUGH??????

    Sure sounds like you are joining the Tea Party. Say it ain’t true?

  15. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. says:

    Phil Graham? Republican Scum teaching in Texas????

    BWAWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    A quick read shows no analysis just coincidence. What a retard. Almost makes me feel sorry for the Longhorns.

    Pure crap if you don’t get the drift.

  16. Animby says:

    # 48 Azure Twine said, “So if I were to research your birth would I find one of these so-called long certificates?”

    You certainly would if you looked up mine! Mom’s name (married and maiden), Dad’s name, doctor’s name, nurse’s name, my religion(?), my address and my footprints. I also have a certified copy called a certificate of birth (whereas the long form is called a birth certificate. Go figure.) Not New York. Rural Indiana. 1949. My sister, born 1964 in Phoenix? Same thing except, IIRC, does not state her religion and it has only one footprint.

    Not arguing the birther’s side, just saying. In fact, I think the birthers are on the wrong track. I suspect the reason Barry doesn’t want us to see it is because it probably lists him as Muslim. Like that makes any difference now! Personally, I’d like to see his college transcripts. But that ain’t likely to happen. The smartest man in the world probably doesn’t want us to feel too inferior.

  17. MikeN says:

    Actually, Bobbo, natural climate variation is a hypohesis, the null hypothesis. This null hypothesis has not been ruled out, as DRoy Spencer has said so many times. It is annoying enough to the scientists that one prominent one, Kevin Trenberth, is trying to change the dynamic, and say the current theory should be the null hypothesis, and it is up to skeptics to prove it wrong.

  18. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. says:

    MikeN==deep thoughts for a Saturday. To the degree I think I understand: I disagree. Like McGuyver you, and like minded overly formalistic scientists, want scientific PROOF before taking action. That is the suicidal path we are on: lack of common sense. Denial of scientific consensus on the best science available: modeling. Not proof. Not perfect. Not guaranteed correct.

    That said, I don’t think we should change scientific principles to make our arguments/conclusions/recommendations for actions.

    A naturally variable climate IS the null hypothesis when talking scientific proof. When talking common sense, and scientific consensus, it becomes appropriate to make AGW the null. But again, concepts of “null” only apply to scientific proof which isn’t even relevant to the issues.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 19511 access attempts in the last 7 days.