Alright, time for a hypothetical situation Sup Forums. Trump made a run in 2000 as a Reform Party candidate; he won the most states for their nomination before dropping off the ticket and doing other things for 15 years.
What if he ran as a Republican and won the 2000 election, with George W Bush as Vice President? What would be different, you think?
Other urls found in this thread:
trump fucking DEMOLISHES the middle east after having his hometown attacked
The Republican party wouldn't have allowed a joke to be their nominee in 2000.
Most likely scenario, then we would have more leftism after his reign
Shut it snowflake
People were nowhere near redpilled enough then to elect Trump.
They needed 8 years of neo con wars and 8 more years of gibs and chimpouts to wake up.
>8 years of neo con wars
You mean 115 years of neocon wars?
He would have won.
In 1995, Bill Clinton gave a speech to congress, saying basically the same stuff as Trump's announcement speech about illegal aliens and got a standing ovation
youtube.com
Liberals were LESS liberal at the time and the left could not have used this against Trump. The left needed 8 years of Bush to make Obama look decent.
>Trump made a run in 2000 as a Reform Party candidate; he won the most states for their nomination before dropping off the ticket and doing other things for 15 years.
Also, I don't know where you learned history. Trump flirted with the Reform party in 2000 after announcing his presidential run, yes, but the Reform party did not choose their nominee through a primary system by which he could "win the most states for their nomination." Rather, it was governed by a national convention of states whose delegates would be presumably be informed by a mail-in ballot beauty contest. In actual fact the Reform party was an empty shell, being that the Reform party was a fake party set up to boost the prospects of one Ross Perot, and the rules were such that a state belonged to whomever could gain a majority of a state's party leadership positions. Pat Buchanan in 2000 actually knew what he was doing and won these individual contests for party officers, and could pack the convention with his people. Trump, running to the left of Pat, thought he could just show up and people would naturally just flock to him; nobody did. Those Perot controlled states that wished to oppose Buchanan instead supported the candidacy of John Haglen, a Transcendental Mediationist. Trump was outdone by a TMer.
Which is why when he launched his campaign for president in 2015 int he lobby in the hotel, Trump hired actors to cheer him down the escalator.
>no, anons, Trump is different; he's not a neocon
Fuck off the board, /r/the_donald.
"Liberals" were just as much liars back then as they are now, and had no intention of doing anything about immigration. They were, after all, responsible for welching on the 1987 amnesty compromise, which was accomplished with the understanding that the country would then build a border fence and get serious about immigration control. This is why the right has since been insistent that there would be no deals on immigration until their policies were implemented first.
>Trump would have won.
Where did you jokers come from, anyway?
Trump in 2000 had a better reputation and generally after 8 years of democrats we get republicans, so he probably would have won assuming he won the primaries.
How he'd have handled 9/11 would be interesting
I know they had no intention
however, when you can get all of congress to clap for you, it's obvious that the PEOPLE were as ready as ever for a wall. Wait for the next state of the union address. Liberals won't stand and clap for deportations. they won't even attend.
Trump wouldn't have won. He would have actually been dismissed as fringe, people wanted boring politics as usual back then.
Although, I believe he could have won in 2004. People would have loved to see somebody call Bush a loser and lightweight in 2004.
>however, when you can get all of congress to clap for you, it's obvious that the PEOPLE were as ready as ever for a wall
Congress can be induced to clap over many things they have no intention of supporting, which doesn't necessarily mean the policy for which they clap is universally popular; it means it has merely enough support within their own coalition that to conspicuously stand opposed might lose them several percentage points in the next election among voters who hold that issue most important. The rest of their coalition understands and "tolerates" this virtue signaling, knowing its all just politics. Yet the large majority would've rebelled against attempt to implement actual border controls.
Hell, even many in the right's coalition of today do not want the wall, and are only suffering Trump's call for one as his own virtue signalling.
>Wait for the next state of the union address. Liberals won't stand and clap for deportations.
I expect a Joe Wilson catcall, if he repeats his call.
Trump in 2000 was just coming off of his corporation's bankruptcy. The 16 year passage of time between that event and his win in the last cycle aided him considerably.
Yfw Iraq would never have happened and we would be in 17th year of Trump's reign.
>Dubya
>McCaint
>Romnull
>not jokes
Predatory mortgage bubble would've been crushed immediately.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
Dubya was merely a bad president, not a failed one.
>of which I expect of Trump
McCain was pretty bad, though, desu fampai.
>was
I was speaking as nominee, but point taken.
He is the epitome of the traitorous rot that infects this country.
Shit makes me sick.
You can always tell the type, they believe in "American Interests" over liberty.
Always be wary of those types, they are a cancer.
>that the Reform party was a fake party set up to boost the prospects of one Ross Perot
This. Third parties in US politics are worthless anyhow because of the nature of the Electoral College system makes it virtually impossible for them to win the presidential election. The only one that ever got significant electoral votes was the Bull Moose party, and they just spoilered the race enough to let the Dems win.
>The only one that ever got significant electoral votes was the Bull Moose party, and they just spoilered the race enough to let the Dems win.
Reform spoilered for Clinton.
>Third parties in US politics are worthless anyhow because of the nature of the Electoral College system makes it virtually impossible for them to win the presidential election
Put not your faith in parties, even and especially the established ones for which the Electoral College favors.
The Reform Party may have been a sham, but it's existence did serve to move politics, for better or worse, through the support it received by voters. Newt Gingrich's "Contract for America" was an attempt to steal of Perot's reform platform, and won the congress for Republicans for the first time in forty years.
>counting the Reform party as having actually exist in 1994, when it didn't, really.
Problem being the contract was only a rhetorical concession to the voters that wasn't acted upon in its key planks, and the people let this slide.