The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rushy on July 22, 2015, 03:50:26 PM

Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 22, 2015, 03:50:26 PM
As of right now Donald Trump is leading the Republican nominee polls by a lot, currently at 24 over Walker's 13 and Bush's 12.

Hillary Clinton is winning the presidential poll and nominee poll by a landslide.

A vote for Trump is a vote for freedom, democracy, and trophy wives. Don't let me down, FES. Topple the Clinton dynasty.


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 22, 2015, 03:54:08 PM
So no matter who wins the election, hilarity is guaranteed to ensue? God bless America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: EnigmaZV on July 22, 2015, 08:22:13 PM
Donald Trump as President would make for great late night TV.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 22, 2015, 08:33:35 PM

I don't get to vote, seems like a choice between an ugly American version of Silvio Berlusconi or an airbrushed Lucrezia Borgia, read up on Italian history and make your choice.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on July 22, 2015, 09:05:53 PM
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 22, 2015, 09:36:40 PM
I will use my common sense and choose the candidate that I believe will do the best job... and that sure isn't the hag Hillary. There are other candidates that could do the job, but they are already in someone's pocket. Republicans and Democrats on both sides are corrupt, and I don't believe anyone can argue with that. Powerful and wealthy friends contribute to their campaigns and get them media coverage all while ensuring their backs are scratched if they win.

If both sides hate Trump and he is financing himself, he has my attention. Trump is the only one I can see that is 'his own man'.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 22, 2015, 11:26:29 PM
I will use my common sense and choose the candidate that I believe will do the best job... and that sure isn't the hag Hillary. There are other candidates that could do the job, but they are already in someone's pocket. Republicans and Democrats on both sides are corrupt, and I don't believe anyone can argue with that. Powerful and wealthy friends contribute to their campaigns and get them media coverage all while ensuring their backs are scratched if they win.

If both sides hate Trump and he is financing himself, he has my attention. Trump is the only one I can see that is 'his own man'.

Would you say that he is winning by a landslide?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 12:17:41 AM
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!

Socialist Scum.

I will use my common sense and choose the candidate that I believe will do the best job... and that sure isn't the hag Hillary. There are other candidates that could do the job, but they are already in someone's pocket. Republicans and Democrats on both sides are corrupt, and I don't believe anyone can argue with that. Powerful and wealthy friends contribute to their campaigns and get them media coverage all while ensuring their backs are scratched if they win.

If both sides hate Trump and he is financing himself, he has my attention. Trump is the only one I can see that is 'his own man'.

Trump 2016

Would you say that he is winning by a landslide?

Can't Stump the Trump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on July 23, 2015, 01:11:13 AM
Trumpy! From that awful pod people movie. I love it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 23, 2015, 01:26:38 AM
Trump's "campaign" thus far is a publicity stunt, not an attempt for political office. Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing.

That said, Hillary Clinton looks like the best likely candidate. As great as Bernie would be, it's not realistic to expect him to win a general election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 01:34:56 AM
Trump's "campaign" thus far is a publicity stunt, not an attempt for political office. Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing.

That said, Hillary Clinton looks like the best likely candidate. As great as Bernie would be, it's not realistic to expect him to win a general election.

(https://i.imgur.com/zHS1RUJ.jpg)

TRUMP 2016

Quote
I want Trump to win because I care more about lulz than the future of this country
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 23, 2015, 03:46:28 AM
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 08:09:12 AM
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.
Yeah, I hate Hilary too.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 23, 2015, 12:08:04 PM
America is choosing between the giant douche and the turd sandwich again. ::)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 01:44:41 PM
America is choosing between the giant douche and the turd sandwich again. ::)
Wait, which one is which?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 23, 2015, 01:52:03 PM
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.
Yeah, I hate Hilary too.

I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 02:19:21 PM
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.
Yeah, I hate Hilary too.

I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.
That's fairly common for our discussions, isn't it? (https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/collections/pride)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 23, 2015, 02:30:59 PM
I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.
That's fairly common for our discussions, isn't it? (https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/collections/pride)

I agree completely.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 02:40:56 PM
I can't wait for Hillary to jump up on stage, say "I'M A WOMAN" then the crowd goes wild and stampedes to the voting booths, making sure to kill any white cishet males they encounter along the way.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on July 23, 2015, 03:25:32 PM
The clear choice is Hillary. She's not perfect, but Trump... Trump. C'mon.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 03:30:33 PM
The clear choice is Hillary. She's not perfect, but Trump... Trump. C'mon.
I don't think he's actually going to win the primaries. If he is, you're fucked either way. In one corner you have a crazy old hypocritical man, in the other, a crazy old hypocritical woman. It basically makes no difference.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 03:42:07 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States of America, Tony Abbott.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 23, 2015, 04:07:50 PM
I'd rather not see Hillary get the nomination.  She has far too much baggage at this point.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Снупс on July 23, 2015, 04:17:01 PM
The clear choice is Hillary. She's not perfect, but Trump... Trump. C'mon.
I don't think he's actually going to win the primaries. If he is, you're fucked either way. In one corner you have a crazy old hypocritical man, in the other, a crazy old hypocritical woman. It basically makes no difference.
I would rather have somewhat somewhat crazy than someone who's...you know...Trump.

Hillary will basically be Obama 2.0, I think, maybe just a bit more liberal. I mean, I'd rather Bernie Sanders won, but if we have to have either Trump or Hillary I'd rather go with the one who's not Trump. I feel that's a safe bet in all cases.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 23, 2015, 04:18:15 PM
I'd rather not see Hillary get the nomination.  She has far too much baggage at this point.
She knows where the kitchen is in the Whitehouse, though.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 04:43:06 PM
Hillary [...] a bit more liberal.
I don't think an outspoken Christian fundamentalist and opponent of LGBT rights will count as more liberal than Obama.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Снупс on July 23, 2015, 04:47:35 PM
When did she say things that make you say that? All I've heard recently is her being pro-LGBT.

But even if that's so. In terms of what she personally thinks, maybe she won't be. But I don't think that'll have that big of an effect on what she actually does in office. If she's adopting a pro-LGBT persona now that LGBT acceptance is becoming a much wider thing, I don't think she'll do a huge, polarizing 180 once she's in office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 05:45:34 PM
All I've heard recently is her being pro-LGBT.
"Recently" being the keyword. That's also why I describe her as "hypocritical". She was very happy to spout her homophobic remarks until she started campaigning, at which point she's suddenly become oh-so-supportive. (And definitely (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614541904722665472) didn't (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614809916423995392) proceed to commercialise the fuck out of her "support").

There are plenty of examples out there, but here's one to set the tone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

But even if that's so. In terms of what she personally thinks, maybe she won't be. But I don't think that'll have that big of an effect on what she actually does in office. If she's adopting a pro-LGBT persona now that LGBT acceptance is becoming a much wider thing, I don't think she'll do a huge, polarizing 180 once she's in office.
Similarly, you could argue that none of the crazy shit Trump says will affect what he does in office. Either of these arguments would be entirely faith-based.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Снупс on July 23, 2015, 05:46:49 PM
That's true, and I'm not claiming to know how either will go. I just personally think Hillary would do less damage than Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 05:51:46 PM
I just personally think Hillary would do less damage than Trump.
I'm not trying to defend Trump or side with him (God, please don't think I am...), but I honestly don't view either of them as better or worse.

My current hope right now is that one of the less crazy Republicans will get elected, since the Democratic primaries seem to be set in stone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Снупс on July 23, 2015, 05:52:40 PM
Well, that's fine. :]
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on July 23, 2015, 06:21:02 PM
w0w, what an eloquent speech, Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 23, 2015, 06:50:28 PM
Besides an evolution of views from eleven years ago, what are the major reasons people think Hillary would make a poor leader? She has extensive legislative and executive experience, she knows domestic and foreign policy, she has access to top advisers in literally every area from her years of experience in a variety of areas.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 06:55:26 PM
Besides an evolution of views from eleven years ago
Just because I picked an example from 2004 does not mean her views were evolving since then. She took a massive u-turn in 2013. I wonder why.

what are the major reasons people think Hillary would make a poor leader? She has extensive legislative and executive experience, she knows domestic and foreign policy, she has access to top advisers in literally every area from her years of experience in a variety of areas.
Having experience is one thing. Being trustworthy, representative, and not outright evil is another.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 08:40:56 PM
And by foreign policy, I suppose you're referring to the deal with Iran, which did nothing more than crush our oil industry and piss off our only major allies in the Middle East. 

We got nothing in return. Iran and their allies still hate us and the only thing keeping them from getting nukes is the UN, the same UN who can't even find official evidence that Israel has nukes.

She also aided in pushing through the affordable Care act, which is a joke. Socialized healthcare isn't a bad idea, but our implementation of it is a disaster. She'll never admit it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Tau on July 23, 2015, 09:19:50 PM
I'm hoping for president Sanders. I'd be okay with Hillary, since she seems competent and being a good person is not a prerequisite for being a good president, and I can't find a republican candidate who doesn't seem insane in some way. Rand Paul would be passably acceptable, since most of his crazier schemes would never actually get past congress.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 23, 2015, 09:36:04 PM

From an outsiders point of view the Republicans scare me most with their connection to the religious bampots, I can't see any future if a country is still shackled to a 2,000 yr old superstition, on that ticket alone I would have to be a democrat, has Trump come out with his beliefs? I know fuck all about him other than his scary visage and the fact he tried to buy Scotland to build a big golf course.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 23, 2015, 09:47:45 PM
Iran and their allies still hate us and the only thing keeping them from getting nukes is the UN, the same UN who can't even find official evidence that Israel has nukes.

Israel never signed the NPT, so the UN could hardly be investigating them for signs of nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 09:57:11 PM
Israel never signed the NPT, so the UN could hardly be investigating them for signs of nuclear weapons.

They do, however, officially claim not to have them and have had UN inspectors visit before, none of which found evidence of a nuclear program. Israel is still a member of the UN, and simply because they have not signed the NPT does not render them immune to the UN. They, like everyone else, think the UN is a joke, and rightly so.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 23, 2015, 10:19:46 PM
And by foreign policy, I suppose you're referring to the deal with Iran
Or the four years as Secretary of State. Or her extensive diplomatic efforts as First Lady.

She also aided in pushing through the affordable Care act, which is a joke. Socialized healthcare isn't a bad idea, but our implementation of it is a disaster. She'll never admit it.
The Affordable Care Act wasn't socialized health care. Also, she was Secretary of State at the time, which focuses on foreign, not domestic, policy.

They do, however, officially claim not to have them and have had UN inspectors visit before, none of which found evidence of a nuclear program.
First of all, the inspectors are from the IAEA, not the United Nations. The distinction is worth noting. Also, they have refused IAEA inspectors numerous times in the past and evidence has indicated they have developed nuclear technologies that have weapons-only applications.

Israel is still a member of the UN, and simply because they have not signed the NPT does not render them immune to the UN.
It does, however, mean they do not have to abide by the NPT.

Having experience is one thing. Being trustworthy, representative, and not outright evil is another.
Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 10:49:22 PM
Or the four years as Secretary of State. Or her extensive diplomatic efforts as First Lady.

Most of which were spent doing fuck all until she decided to run for president.

The Affordable Care Act wasn't socialized health care. Also, she was Secretary of State at the time, which focuses on foreign, not domestic, policy.

Which is irrelevant since she still vocally supported it and wouldn't dare question how good it is. Also, I didn't say ACA was socialized healthcare. If anything, that's exactly the problem.

First of all, the inspectors are from the IAEA, not the United Nations. The distinction is worth noting. Also, they have refused IAEA inspectors numerous times in the past and evidence has indicated they have developed nuclear technologies that have weapons-only applications.

Okay.

It does, however, mean they do not have to abide by the NPT.

That wasn't really relevant to my point, though. I didn't even bring up the NPT.

Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?

She is, as far as I know, still female. I haven't checked or anything, but that's apparently one of her main campaign points.

Huehue.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 24, 2015, 06:36:37 AM
Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?
Do you want Benghazi rants? Because that's how you get Benghazi rants.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 24, 2015, 05:58:30 PM
In current polls, Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia would rather vote for Jeb Bush than Hillary Clinton. That's pretty interesting. General election polls still show Clinton beating Bush by an average of 5.5 points.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 24, 2015, 06:07:31 PM
Clinton or Bush is a vote for war.

Trump is dim, I don't think he's as dangerous. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 24, 2015, 06:10:21 PM
You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 24, 2015, 06:22:20 PM
You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.
I guess you're an example of the reason the US has so many terrible presidents. ::)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 24, 2015, 07:34:59 PM
Enlighten me as to what has been so terrible about them.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 25, 2015, 06:18:42 AM
Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?
Do you want Benghazi rants? Because that's how you get Benghazi rants.
Neither I, nor anyone with a brain, are willing to entertain a right-wing rant about a bureaucratic failure pinned a upon  singular person.  If you want to be belligerent go ahead. I just know you're far better than that.]




Polls mean nothing this far out. If you want further explanation this far out let me know.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2015, 01:08:44 PM
Neither I, nor anyone with a brain, are willing to entertain a right-wing rant about a bureaucratic failure pinned a upon  singular person.
Of course. That's why people talk about Benghazi, and not bureaucratic failures.

Also, this is an obvious quote-mine, but I'm failing to find this quote in context. Does anyone here know what Clinton was actually trying to say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_VIGWFufk
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 25, 2015, 01:16:27 PM
It was from a speech on systemic racism:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/hillary-clinton-we-can-t-hide-from-hard-truths-on-race-96ce2257fe5a
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 25, 2015, 01:17:34 PM
Even I have to say that video is horribly out of context.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2015, 05:21:10 PM
Even I have to say that video is horribly out of context.
Yeah, it's pretty obvious. I was just hoping to find a source

It was from a speech on systemic racism:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/hillary-clinton-we-can-t-hide-from-hard-truths-on-race-96ce2257fe5a
Thanks
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 25, 2015, 08:09:35 PM
You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.

Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 26, 2015, 02:49:20 PM
Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.

"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" only works if the enemy of your enemy isn't already your enemy. Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2015, 03:37:01 PM
I think Jura is saying that the Saudis are more likely to give WMDs to ISIS but won't because the Saudi-US relationship is too valuable.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 26, 2015, 03:55:19 PM
Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.

lol

srsly ur 2 funny
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2015, 03:58:02 PM
I think Jura is saying that the Saudis are more likely to give WMDs to ISIS but won't because the Saudi-US relationship is too valuable.

That won't mean they won't do it.

Think about this:
A couple years go by, Obama is out and the Republicans want to fully smear him as the Iran deal went through.
So they talk to the Saudi's, get them to give nukes(or even a dud nuke) to ISIS, ISIS then goes to nuke something.  Republicans blame Iran, smear Obama and Democrats with "He almost/did wipe(d) out a city!".  They're heroes for attacking Iran, Israel is happy, and Oil prices jump up 500%.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on July 26, 2015, 04:52:23 PM

I don't get to vote, seems like a choice between an ugly American version of Silvio Berlusconi or an airbrushed Lucrezia Borgia, read up on Italian history and make your choice.
  No thanks.  The new thing in America is to ignore history so that we may repeat it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 26, 2015, 09:52:25 PM
Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.

"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" only works if the enemy of your enemy isn't already your enemy. Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.

Although they do hate Americans, this sectarian divide has been running since muhammad died, the death toll since the end of the Iraq war between them dwarfs that which the Americans managed,  in 2014 ISIS forces killed over 1,700 Shia civilians at Camp Speicher alone, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations, it's not a pretty picture.
In trying to manipulate this to the wests advantage we/you have released a geni we have no hope of controlling, model 29 is right.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 27, 2015, 10:53:36 AM
What happened to Rand Paul's presidential bid? I thought he was the best option. :(
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on December 09, 2015, 04:02:36 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVu5I_JWwAAUB-F.jpg)

#Trump2016
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on December 09, 2015, 04:42:48 AM
People like Trump because he's honest. That's pretty much unheard of for a politician, but I think his shitty, anti-liberty ideas trump that fact.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 09, 2015, 05:11:20 AM
http://www.theonion.com/article/will-be-end-trumps-campaign-says-increasingly-nerv-52002
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 09, 2015, 07:55:36 AM
There is still another possibility: a third Obama term.

In fact, Congressional Representative Jose Serrano of New York has introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits the number of terms a U.S. President may serve.

But it doesn't even have to get to this stage: all that is needed is a declaration of martial law (ongoing terrorist uprisings, or a "nuclear" 9/11); so that the existing president remains in office until the emergency passes (some kind of event which will prevent the actual national election from taking place).


Preferably, we can succeed through coercive means short of military force. We should be open to negotiations with Iran. But always remember that they should not be deemed a success when they only lead to further negotiations. Stronger pressure shouldn’t be postponed in the expectation our forbearance will encourage Iran to act in good faith. Nothing in our experience with Iran suggests it considers such gestures as anything other than a lack of resolve on our part.

Ultimately however, we must remember that their ambitions so far have come with a high tolerance for pain. Therefore, even as we work through the United Nations and with the international community on sanctions and negotiations, we should operate on a dual track. We should also be preparing our allies, and the world, for the reality that unfortunately, if all else fails, preventing a nuclear Iran may require a military solution.


M. Rubio

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2015, 05:36:48 AM
There is still another possibility: a third Obama term.

In fact, Congressional Representative Jose Serrano of New York has introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits the number of terms a U.S. President may serve.

But it doesn't even have to get to this stage: all that is needed is a declaration of martial law (ongoing terrorist uprisings, or a "nuclear" 9/11); so that the existing president remains in office until the emergency passes (some kind of event which will prevent the actual national election from taking place)


No.
Jose Serrano has been proposing this bill since 1993.  It has never made a floor vote.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 10, 2015, 09:11:03 AM
I'm willing to bet a month's worth of wages that Obama won't get a third term.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Снупс on December 10, 2015, 09:16:28 AM
m8 I'd bet the rest of the money I earn in my life that he won't. I actually, sincerely told my conspiracy theorist brother in law I'd give him every dime I make from now 'til I die if Obama gets a third term. He very firmly believed he would, but wasn't willing to bet anything.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2015, 09:51:19 AM
m8 I'd bet the rest of the money I earn in my life that he won't. I actually, sincerely told my conspiracy theorist brother in law I'd give him every dime I make from now 'til I die if Obama gets a third term. He very firmly believed he would, but wasn't willing to bet anything.
Then he didn't believe it.


Also I remember when it was bush getting a 3rd term.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 10, 2015, 07:39:36 PM
You mean this?

You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.

Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.




Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on December 11, 2015, 01:19:12 AM
If ISIS nuked London, I don't think very many people would have the slightest problem with indiscriminately carpet bombing all of Syria. That would be a pretty suicidal move.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on December 11, 2015, 11:12:16 AM
Banning muslims from coming to the US is a very bad idea. Where would they go instead? Oh yeah, Europe.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 11, 2015, 07:51:28 PM
If a major war breaks out in 2016, the chances of a third Obama term increase greatly.

Other than that, the winner will be whichever candidate will gain/attract the votes which would have been given to Trump.

Of course, should any of the main candidates choose to run as an independent/third party (including Sanders), it will make it easier to pick out the winner ahead of time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 12, 2015, 07:28:26 PM
Let us focus on the Republican primaries.

Obviously, in Iowa, the evangelical vote will matter most.

So, one week later, the candidate who wins Iowa might get second or third place in NH.

Given the large number of well-known strong candidates, the SC primary might not be a clear indication of what will happen three months down the road.

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.

The number of candidates will then narrow considerably: conservative side vs. moderate (establishment) side.

-a brokered convention might be possible
-sudden major surprises (one the main candidates dropping out for whatever reason, choosing to run as an independent) are also possible
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 12, 2015, 07:54:35 PM
As for the Democratic nomination:

https://revolutionaryds.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/sanders-can-win-the-democratic-presidential-primary-heres-how/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/this-is-how-bernie-sanders-could-win/

http://www.latintimes.com/can-bernie-sanders-win-latino-vote-338458
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on December 12, 2015, 08:05:02 PM
Sanders has no chance at all of winning. The election is being more or less setup to ensure that Hillary wins, regardless of anyone else that gets in the way. She is the one that corporations want to see in office.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 12, 2015, 08:25:08 PM
Corporations have more to worry about than Clinton's chances of actually winning anything (imagine having to go against a Cruz-Carson ticket): the Fed gradually raising rates in 2016 to some 1%, the looming possibility of a war breaking out in the ME.

It is true that each of the previous presidential contests in the US has been staged (not by corporations but to a low degree; the decisions are always taken at the highest levels of the most powerful secret societies), but this time around there would have been no need to bring Trump into the political process in order to get Clinton elected; this is why the actual analysis is more complex.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on December 13, 2015, 01:29:42 AM
The analysis isn't complex. The candidate that receives the most money wins.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 13, 2015, 07:09:01 AM
Certainly money is important up to a certain point.

There have been many analysts who have written articles with titles like, "Is Trump Running A False Flag Campaign", "Is Donald Trump A Democratic Secret Agent", "Is Trump Working For Hillary"...

Such an outcome would mean the end of the Republican Party, as its only role was to get a candidate from another party elected.

Voters will revolt and ask: how could the Republican leadership have been duped to let Trump get all the advantages from the very start, and not say anything about it?

Why let Trump run as an independent at the end of the electoral process, when they could have easily come out and say from the very start that Trump does not represent in any way the Republican party?

Moreover, it would be an irreparable blow to Trump's reputation and character: a con artist whose main goal was to get Clinton elected and in the process fooled his own voters.

Such a simplistic scenario does not make sense at all: it could have been easily prevented by the Republican leadership from the very start.


Trump's role is to prepare the way for someone else, and one of the best and honorable ways to exit would be a brokered convention, where Trump will hit a roadblock: the very complexity of the republican electoral process (party rules, the way delegates are allocated to each state, the bonus delegates, and much more).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 17, 2015, 06:59:55 AM
Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

On December 12, I wrote:

Obviously, in Iowa, the evangelical vote will matter most.

(imagine having to go against a Cruz-Carson ticket)

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance,  especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.


On December 13, many hours before the actual poll came out:

Trump's role is to prepare the way for someone else


Then, the Iowa poll was published, surprising everyone (with the exception of those, including LordDave, who read my messages):

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-12/cruz-soars-to-front-of-the-pack-in-iowa-poll-trump-support-stays-flat-ii3p88rp


On December 12, I also wrote:

the Fed gradually raising rates in 2016 to some 1%

At that time, everyone was sure that the Fed would only raise the rate by 0.25% and then stop for a long time before even considering raising the rates again.


Then, again, to just about everyone's surprise:

...signaling that the pace of subsequent increases will be “gradual”

Then the Fed separately forecast an appropriate rate of 1.375 percent at the end of 2016, implying four 0.25% increases in the rate next year.

As for what will happen on March 1, we will see...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2015, 08:31:55 AM
Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

On December 12, I wrote:

Obviously, in Iowa, the evangelical vote will matter most.

(imagine having to go against a Cruz-Carson ticket)

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance,  especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.


On December 13, many hours before the actual poll came out:

Trump's role is to prepare the way for someone else


Then, the Iowa poll was published, surprising everyone (with the exception of those, including LordDave, who read my messages):

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-12/cruz-soars-to-front-of-the-pack-in-iowa-poll-trump-support-stays-flat-ii3p88rp (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-12/cruz-soars-to-front-of-the-pack-in-iowa-poll-trump-support-stays-flat-ii3p88rp)


On December 12, I also wrote:

the Fed gradually raising rates in 2016 to some 1%

At that time, everyone was sure that the Fed would only raise the rate by 0.25% and then stop for a long time before even considering raising the rates again.


Then, again, to just about everyone's surprise:

...signaling that the pace of subsequent increases will be “gradual”

Then the Fed separately forecast an appropriate rate of 1.375 percent at the end of 2016, implying four 0.25% increases in the rate next year.

As for what will happen on March 1, we will see...


I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.  Not surprised.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 17, 2015, 09:20:32 AM
Please provide the link.

You mean this?

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459642064/why-ted-cruz-could-have-a-real-shot-at-the-gop-nomination

(it is dated December 14)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2015, 09:43:07 AM
Please provide the link.

You mean this?

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459642064/why-ted-cruz-could-have-a-real-shot-at-the-gop-nomination (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459642064/why-ted-cruz-could-have-a-real-shot-at-the-gop-nomination)

(it is dated December 14)


So it is.  Still not surprising.


What about all your past prediction?  Like from 4 years ago.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 05, 2016, 04:34:09 PM
Some of the best economists in the world offer their opinion on the unexpected danger of higher inflation in the United States:

http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Sp15_InflationSymp.pdf

See also: http://www.themoneyenigma.com/the-risk-of-inflation-in-2016/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Hoppy on January 05, 2016, 05:38:33 PM
m8 I'd bet the rest of the money I earn in my life that he won't. I actually, sincerely told my conspiracy theorist brother in law I'd give him every dime I make from now 'til I die if Obama gets a third term. He very firmly believed he would, but wasn't willing to bet anything.
Have you told your brother inlaw that the earth s flat?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 15, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
(https://theuglytruth.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/putin1.jpg)

According to the official chronology of history, on March 26, 1790, the First Congress passed a law providing, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This appears to be the only legal text from the time of the Constitution’s adoption that defines the term “natural born citizen.”

"In 1802, Congress enacted a statute to providing that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.”"


This was strategic for Trump: Cruz and Trump have most of the same beliefs. If Trump is removed, Cruz will be the standard bearer. Thus, Trump wants Cruz to be available if he’s removed from contention.

Fact is, as Trump says, Hillary will use Cruz’ eligibility as a weapon. Trump is getting this out of the way, early. It will have burnt through its powder – and power – long before Hillary can try to ignite it.


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: junker on January 16, 2016, 05:41:32 AM
I'm helping to get Hillary elected.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Shane on January 18, 2016, 12:57:11 AM
I'm helping to get Hillary elected.

Whilst secretly Berning on the inside
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: junker on January 18, 2016, 01:54:03 AM

I'm helping to get Hillary elected.

Whilst secretly Berning on the inside

I got paid to help hill dog. My heart is Berning.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2016, 06:03:24 AM
I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.

What's his stance on the Rebuilds?

No idea what you mean.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2016, 06:52:48 AM
I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.

What's his stance on the Rebuilds?

No idea what you mean.
Just a guess: he couldn't figure out what you meant by "evengelion" (I sure know I can't), so he pretended you said "Evangelion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuild_of_Evangelion
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2016, 11:55:33 AM
I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.

What's his stance on the Rebuilds?

No idea what you mean.
Just a guess: he couldn't figure out what you meant by "evengelion" (I sure know I can't), so he pretended you said "Evangelion".

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

Ah.  Once again my inability to spell has confused all.

Evangelicalism is what I was going for. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2016, 10:03:12 AM
(http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/GOP/putin-palin1.jpg)

At first glance, the latest polls in Iowa seem to indicate that Trump might be the favorite...

However, the caucus organizers are set up by the state parties and are run by volunteers: only the most motivated voters win.

Trump's support comes from groups of voters that have no history of high voter turnout.

And the ethanol lobby issue has been eclipsed by what republican voters consider to be a more important matter: basic conservative principles.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on January 25, 2016, 10:35:57 AM
Well, it looks like it is going to be Trump.

Trump will win Republican Idol because he has experience in reality TV competitions. And that is exactly what this presidential cycle will be like. Politicians used to have debates run by the groups such as women's lib who would ask questions of the candidates based on their area of interest. The candidates would get a 60 min opening speech, receive follow up questions and then provide a 30 min rebuttal.

Now they go on NBC or Fox debates. They have 60 seconds to talk about the economy for example, get a question back and give a 30 second rebuttal.

This plays to Trump. He's going to slaughter any other Republican.


Now Trump is also going to win the whitehouse. Janet Yellen has seen to that. By November the economy in America is going to be in meltdown with a crashed stock market, bail outs for banks, major corps, huge amounts of debt etc. Yellen pricked the bubble. And no democrat will stand a chance because they are going to be blamed for the financial turmoil as it has happened on Obama's watch and he kept telling everyone he saved the economy ... which he didn't, he kicked the can down the road.


So Trump it is. Enjoy America, enjoy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2016, 12:14:41 PM
Well, it looks like it is going to be Trump.

Trump will win Republican Idol because he has experience in reality TV competitions. And that is exactly what this presidential cycle will be like. Politicians used to have debates run by the groups such as women's lib who would ask questions of the candidates based on their area of interest. The candidates would get a 60 min opening speech, receive follow up questions and then provide a 30 min rebuttal.

Now they go on NBC or Fox debates. They have 60 seconds to talk about the economy for example, get a question back and give a 30 second rebuttal.

This plays to Trump. He's going to slaughter any other Republican.


Now Trump is also going to win the whitehouse. Janet Yellen has seen to that. By November the economy in America is going to be in meltdown with a crashed stock market, bail outs for banks, major corps, huge amounts of debt etc. Yellen pricked the bubble. And no democrat will stand a chance because they are going to be blamed for the financial turmoil as it has happened on Obama's watch and he kept telling everyone he saved the economy ... which he didn't, he kicked the can down the road.


So Trump it is. Enjoy America, enjoy.
The GOP will block him at the caucus.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 25, 2016, 02:03:11 PM

And now the beautiful and highly intelligent Sarah Palin has backed him! The dream ticket for the mentally unwell, IF they get in, say goodbye to civilisation.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 26, 2016, 12:51:45 PM

I'm going with a utopian dream here, there are lots of intelligent Americans that will follow their hearts and Bernie will be the next president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 26, 2016, 12:59:59 PM
Bernie is way too old and frail for the presidency.  He looks like he's about to have a heart attack from the strain in every debate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2016, 02:42:19 PM
I'm going with a utopian dream here, there are lots of intelligent Americans that will follow their hearts and Bernie will be the next president.
Look, I know America prides itself in being the "land of the free", but that doesn't mean you can just have free shit forever.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on January 26, 2016, 04:09:18 PM
I'm going with a utopian dream here, there are lots of intelligent Americans that will follow their hearts and Bernie will be the next president.
Look, I know America prides itself in being the "land of the free", but that doesn't mean you can just have free shit forever.

free shit forever?  i think a fairer criticism would be that his proposals are pretty expensive. 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2016, 04:17:16 PM
free shit forever?  i think a fairer criticism would be that his proposals are pretty expensive. 
Yes. Remember the part where I said you can't have free shit forever?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 26, 2016, 04:19:40 PM
There are three outcomes I can see.

Option 1) The Republican Caucuses stop Trump from getting the GOP nomination, he throws his toys out of the pram and stands as an independent. The next recession hits and Hilary Clinton gets punished by the Democrats for letting it happen while she was a part of the Cabinet. Bernie is the Democratic candidate. Trump splits the Right-wing vote and Bernie is elected.

Option 2) Trump gets the nomination, the recession hits, Trump uses it to pound the democrats (whoever is nominated) and limps over the line. Global depression follows. Wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc.

3) Trump is nominated, the recession doesn't hit (or is shallower than predicated) Hillary uses it as a demonstration of the government of which she's a part's handling of the crisis, secures the Democratic nomination and strolls comfortably into the Oval Office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 26, 2016, 04:21:08 PM
Not quite sure what you are getting at here Sexy but I'll hazard a guess and you can put me right with bullet points (I know you like that) should you so wish.

Bernie as I understand from the little I've read will put up taxes, especially on the rich and very rich, but also make sure that the corporations don't get away with screwing the system and also make them pay a living wage of $15.
Now I know some will cry ruin and head for the hills but a moderate redistribution of wealth will put more back in the system, the tax to be spent on infrastructure and jobs, simple, world sorted.
What bothers me is the legions of dumb poor, bamboozled by the Republicans into paying for the rich by voting for continual cuts to their services via tax breaks for the rich, just because they hate gays and abortion, or believe Obama is a Muslim, despite people like Romney quite openly saying the lower 47%  are not his concern, even worse the bigger share who just don't vote at all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2016, 04:53:24 PM
Bernie as I understand from the little I've read will put up taxes, especially on the rich and very rich, but also make sure that the corporations don't get away with screwing the system and also make them pay a living wage of $15.
And give them free everything. Let's not forget that part.

But yeah, I like the $15/hr idea, too. It's been a while since we saw some hilarious hyperinflation, and it would help prevent another Democratic fiasco for generations to come. Overall, a good long-term outcome.

What bothers me is the legions of dumb poor, bamboozled by the Republicans into paying for the rich by voting for continual cuts to their services via tax breaks for the rich, just because they hate gays and abortion, or believe Obama is a Muslim, despite people like Romney quite openly saying the lower 47%  are not his concern, even worse the bigger share who just don't vote at all.
Or, you know, perhaps some people aren't fans of socialism. Wealth redistribution is only good for you if you're underperforming.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 26, 2016, 10:12:29 PM
Well there's a thought, under-performing. 3.32 billion people, nearly half the world living on less than $2.50 a day, the under performing shiftless bastards, what with the poorest 40% living on 5% of the worlds income, while the top 20% (winning!) having ¾, why don't they get off their asses and do some work, I mean warren Buffet made $815 million, Larry Ellison $915M, today! (26/1/16 Forbes) So it can't be hard.
The scales have fallen from my eyes sexy, $15 a day, what was I thinking, where could that possibly come from. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on January 26, 2016, 10:13:36 PM
free shit forever?  i think a fairer criticism would be that his proposals are pretty expensive. 
Yes. Remember the part where I said you can't have free shit forever?

lol i get the gag, i just think it's off the mark.  regardless of what bernie himself might say about the net effects, i don't think it's possible to pay for those policies without the middle class bearing a not-insignificant part of the tax burden.  i think that's the 'referendum' that underlies his bid to be president: more taxes, more services.  personally i'm down with it, but i don't think it's unreasonable not to be.  i think it's ultimately shortsighted, but i sympathize.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2016, 10:20:08 PM
lol i get the gag, i just think it's off the mark.  regardless of what bernie himself might say about the net effects, i don't think it's possible to pay for those policies without the middle class bearing a not-insignificant part of the tax burden.  i think that's the 'referendum' that underlies his bid to be president: more taxes, more services.  personally i'm down with it, but i don't think it's unreasonable not to be.  i think it's ultimately shortsighted, but i sympathize.
Honestly, we seem to be basically in agreement here. I'm just a bit more violent about my convictions.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 27, 2016, 08:47:17 AM
Trump is still leading by a large margin.  WTF?

Seriously, could he actually win the caucus and become the GOP candidate?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 27, 2016, 09:17:43 AM
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/stories/9970/one-chart-predicting-next-president

http://www.fastcompany.com/3054762/elasticity/heres-why-polls-are-so-bad-at-predicting-election-results
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 27, 2016, 11:55:51 AM
Donald "No Fucks Given" J. Trump strikes again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35416625
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 27, 2016, 11:56:20 AM
"I figured I would have spent about $10 million by this point, right? I've spent nothing! I've spent nothing!" he exclaimed in an August interview on the Fox Business Network. "I've spent zero! I mean, zero!"

(D. Trump, October 2015)

Two months later, Trump did not spend the smallest fraction of his $300 million in available cash.

In fact, there is no indication that he has any intention of actually doing so.

In a recent CNN interview, when asked that he might need to spend one billion dollars to run against the Democratic candidate, Trump was visibly uncomfortable with the question, and tried to divert the discussion to another issue.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on January 31, 2016, 12:35:15 AM
Trump won the last Republican debate before the Iowa Caucus by not being there.

(http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1454199392631.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 31, 2016, 01:13:41 AM
The fate of the US presidential race depends on one age-old question:

Will /pol/'s love of Trump force them to get out of their homes and attend the primaries/caucuses?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on January 31, 2016, 01:22:36 AM
The fate of the US presidential race depends on one age-old question:

Will /pol/'s love of Trump force them to get out of their homes and attend the primaries/caucuses?

I guess we'll find out Monday if Trump's poll data is legit or it's just 4chan gaming the system again.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2016, 04:58:50 PM
Would be feared by US enemies...
Well, yeah.  Once the world is the US's enemy, everyone's gonna be afraid of him.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 01, 2016, 11:18:24 PM
Iowa caucus tonight, should have the results by 2300 central time zone. Everyone pray for god-emperor Trump's success.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2016, 11:57:56 PM
The Iowa caucus is hailed as some kind of first test but it's small, mainly white farmers.  Hardly a telling example of a candidate's standing.

Still, I'm worried Trump will make it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: markjo on February 02, 2016, 04:20:54 AM
Iowa caucus tonight, should have the results by 2300 central time zone. Everyone pray for god-emperor Trump's success.
Nope.  Looks like Cruz pulled off the upset.
Quote from: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=iowa+caucus+results&eob=R/2/short/m.03s0w/
Cruz (won)    27.7%
Trump    24.4%
Rubio    23.1%
Carson    9.3%
Paul       4.5%
Bush       2.8%
Kasich    1.9%
Fiorina    1.9%
Christie    1.8%
Huckabee    1.8%
Santorum    1%
Gilmore    0%
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 05:45:20 AM
You understand as much about economics as you do about any other topic.

Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82880#msg82880

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82620#msg82620

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg86809#msg86809

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 08:03:35 AM
You understand as much about economics as you do about any other topic.

Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82880#msg82880

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82620#msg82620

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg86809#msg86809
Congratulations.  You were right by 3%.
I'm shocked.
/sarcasm
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 02, 2016, 12:15:34 PM
How is he right? He never once said who would win Iowa.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 12:28:19 PM
But I did with each and every message; read them again.

While all of you were busy praising Trump, I noticed several things which could not have occurred by chance (2 Corinthians, no show for the Iowa debate and many other very subtle things).


Now, we will see what happens on March 1; let us not forget that in 2012, a full 65% of the Republican voters in South Carolina said they were evangelical Christians.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 02, 2016, 02:41:54 PM
But I did with each and every message; read them again.

While all of you were busy praising Trump, I noticed several things which could not have occurred by chance (2 Corinthians, no show for the Iowa debate and many other very subtle things).


Now, we will see what happens on March 1; let us not forget that in 2012, a full 65% of the Republican voters in South Carolina said they were evangelical Christians.

Ah, in other words you're keeping your messages as vague as possible to avoid making false predictions. You're doing the same thing horoscopes do and it's not going to fool anyone.

I guess I'm there only one here brave enough to actually say who I predict will win the nomination. I predict Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 02:57:59 PM
I predict Ted Cruz by a very suspiciously narrow margin.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 03:43:01 PM
You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions, as you have done several times before.

My messages speak for themselves.

Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?


ld, let us carefully see what is going in NH.

Four years ago just 22% of the state's primary voters were evangelical (47% of the Republican voters described themselves as moderates).

However, the evangelical electorate of the Republican party was not enthusiastic at all in the past two elections; now, they do have someone they can identify with.

According to some social research organizations, there are some 300,000 people of faith who aren't voting in NH (of course, there is no guarantee that they will all vote Republican).

An expert on voting in NH estimated that "a top-notch, flawless field operation could bump up a candidate eight to 12 percentage points".


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on February 02, 2016, 05:00:21 PM
My messages speak for themselves.

i've been taking your messages to mean that putin is going to win south carolina by at least ten points after officially announcing that his running mate is a grizzly bear.  am i close?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: markjo on February 02, 2016, 05:03:32 PM
Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?
I predict that the people will come to their senses and Trump will not win the nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Shane on February 02, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Time to dump the Trump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 02, 2016, 05:20:27 PM
You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions, as you have done several times before.

My messages speak for themselves.

Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?


ld, let us carefully see what is going in NH.

Four years ago just 22% of the state's primary voters were evangelical (47% of the Republican voters described themselves as moderates).

However, the evangelical electorate of the Republican party was not enthusiastic at all in the past two elections; now, they do have someone they can identify with.

According to some social research organizations, there are some 300,000 people of faith who aren't voting in NH (of course, there is no guarantee that they will all vote Republican).

An expert on voting in NH estimated that "a top-notch, flawless field operation could bump up a candidate eight to 12 percentage points".

Do you not agree with my prediction?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on February 02, 2016, 07:26:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/958QjeG.png)

decent, boys.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 07:29:47 PM
If Trump had really wanted to run a bona fide campaign, then he would not have committed the mistakes which have contributed greatly to his first loss.

Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 07:36:18 PM
If Trump had really wanted to run a bona fide campaign, then he would not have committed the mistakes which have contributed greatly to his first loss.

Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?

Eh.  His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political.  It makes a lot of people jump for joy but also turns alot off.  He polarizes and as such, lost.  Though it was narrow.

Also, they didn't.  The GOP does not want trump in thr whitehouse.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 02, 2016, 07:45:01 PM
Historically, if Trump had won Iowa, he would have less of a chance to win the nomination, not more of one.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 07:54:43 PM
His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political.

This is the impression left by his intentional behavior while on the campaign trail, not his real personality.


I repeat, Trump is not serious, at least so far, about campaigning for the GOP nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 07:58:00 PM
His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political.

This is the impression left by his intentional behavior while on the campaign trail, not his real personality.


I repeat, Trump is not serious, at least so far, about campaigning for the GOP nomination.

Yeah, I've know that since he began.  He's a plant to get a democrat in.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 08:00:57 PM
Historically, if Trump had won Iowa, he would have less of a chance to win the nomination, not more of one.

So what you are saying is that Trump intentionally lost Iowa, in order to fulfill some historical profile in which candidates which lose Iowa then go on to win the nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 08:05:22 PM
He's a plant to get a democrat in.

No, he is not; please read my comments posted on December 13, 2015:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82666#msg82666
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: markjo on February 02, 2016, 08:47:19 PM
Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?
What makes you think that the Republican party wants Trump in the White House?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 09:51:11 PM
He's a plant to get a democrat in.

No, he is not; please read my comments posted on December 13, 2015:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82666#msg82666

Yes, Trumps role is to become popular then force people to pick someone else when he drops out unexpectedly.

Yeah, thats likely...

He hasn't droppes out yet and isn't likely to due to "complex roadblocms".
If he does anything, it'll be to run as an independant whicb will fuck the gop up so badly by splitting their base in two.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: markjo on February 03, 2016, 02:31:29 AM
In the Iowa caucuses, it appears that a coin toss is a valid way to win a delegate.
Quote from: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coin-toss-broke-6-clinton-sanders-deadlocks-in-iowa-and-hillary-won-each-time-2016-02-02
While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it’s easy to say who was luckier.

The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 03, 2016, 02:40:14 AM
The chances of her winning all six is so improbable that I call bullshit.

1.5% chance of all six being in her favor. So it isn't terrible, but I still call bull.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 07:20:48 AM
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/voter-fraud-and-missing-precincts-how-clinton-stole-iowa/ri12583?utm_source=Russia+Insider+Daily+Headlines&utm_campaign=f36ffbdf73-Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c626db089c-f36ffbdf73-227216917&ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=f36ffbdf73&mc_eid=50f375c7ea
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 09:14:44 AM
The wisdom of cracked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmZOZjHjT5E
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 12:13:54 PM
The chances of her winning all six is so improbable that I call bullshit.

1.5% chance of all six being in her favor. So it isn't terrible, but I still call bull.

www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

Long story short: the coin tosses didn't amount to much and were independant flips.  Also, caucuses are fucking confusing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 03, 2016, 03:22:54 PM
Iowa was a victory for Trump. Cruz winning in his base state was the expected result, and the fact that he barely won even while committing voting fraud means he's on thin ice. This result simply shows that Trump is a legitimate candidate and he's going to take NH easy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 03, 2016, 04:50:52 PM
Both Sanders and Trump each have extremely large leads in the NH polls so we'll see how that works out next Tuesday. 

It'll be a truly interesting race if we end up with a Trump vs Sanders ordeal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2016, 05:03:24 PM
r u b i o   2 0 1 6
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 05:21:15 PM
On the Republican side, the 18 percentage points difference in the recent NH polls can be overcome as I have described earlier.

On the Democratic side, there might still be surprises: if a major war breaks out, as I have said before, Obama's chances for a third term increase greatly.

If Hillary is forced to drop out of the race, another major figure (perhaps Kerry) might step in.

Let us go back to my message posted on December 12:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

The number of candidates will then narrow considerably: conservative side vs. moderate (establishment) side.

This is exactly what is happening now: Cruz vs. Rubio. However, the establishment vote is split among several candidates, especially on March 1.

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on February 03, 2016, 05:25:23 PM
so you correctly predicted that the field would narrow after iowa and that the evangelical vote would be important

wow gj i'm impressed 10/10
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 05:36:32 PM
There is another point of view which offers a different take on the whole situation:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/jeb-bush-is-2016s-john-kerry-213341

However, this time around the moderate/establishment vote is split up all the way to "super tuesday", after which it might be too late to try to emulate Kerry's 2004 campaign.


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 05:55:52 PM
On the Republican side, the 18 percentage points difference in the recent NH polls can be overcome as I have described earlier.

On the Democratic side, there might still be surprises: if a major war breaks out, as I have said before, Obama's chances for a third term increase greatly.

If Hillary is forced to drop out of the race, another major figure (perhaps Kerry) might step in.

Let us go back to my message posted on December 12:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

The number of candidates will then narrow considerably: conservative side vs. moderate (establishment) side.

This is exactly what is happening now: Cruz vs. Rubio. However, the establishment vote is split among several candidates, especially on March 1.

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.

Obama won't get a 3rd term just like Bush didn't.

Yes, the field would narrow.  Thats a given.

What about Trump?  Its clearly Cruz vs Trump now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 03, 2016, 06:03:07 PM
Lol, some Trump fans think it was all a conspiracy.  Somehow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/02/no-trump-fans-marco-rubio-and-microsoft-didnt-steal-your-votes/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 03, 2016, 06:21:34 PM
It would be incredibly easy to vote fix electronic ballots. It's why a lot of countries still use paper ballots.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it could very easily be done.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 06:53:49 PM
On March 1, whichever of the candidates is from a home state, will win big overall on that day.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 07:14:10 PM
On March 1, whichever of the candidates is from a home state, will win big overall on that day.

So Carly Fiorina will win big.  Got it.
Also Ted Cruz.

But that's it.  So which one will win big?  Or will both win big?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 07:30:15 PM
According to exit polls, evangelical Christians comprised a majority of 2012 Republican primary voters in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Louisiana, and majorities of 2008 voters in Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas (states where exit polls were not conducted last time). Although exit polls aren’t available, evangelicals, based on their share of the overall population, will likely comprise a majority of GOP voters in other Heartland states including Kansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

In December, Cruz held only three events in Iowa, but attended 10 in the South.

By contrast, Trump's sole super state visit was to Virginia (one event). Likewise, Fiorina made only one visit to the southern states.

Cruz has devoted significant time and resources to the southern states even at a very early stage of the primaries.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 09:10:19 PM
According to exit polls, evangelical Christians comprised a majority of 2012 Republican primary voters in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Louisiana, and majorities of 2008 voters in Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas (states where exit polls were not conducted last time). Although exit polls aren’t available, evangelicals, based on their share of the overall population, will likely comprise a majority of GOP voters in other Heartland states including Kansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

In December, Cruz held only three events in Iowa, but attended 10 in the South.

By contrast, Trump's sole super state visit was to Virginia (one event). Likewise, Fiorina made only one visit to the southern states.

Cruz has devoted significant time and resources to the southern states even at a very early stage of the primaries.

Still waiting for an answer.  Which gop candidate with a home state on march 1 will win big?  You can't just say that and there be two possibilities.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 04, 2016, 07:25:21 AM
The answer that you seek is virtually contained in the question that you posed: I already explained that Fiorina has not devoted the time/resources needed to win in the South.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2016, 07:42:12 AM
The answer that you seek is virtually contained in the question that you posed: I already explained that Fiorina has not devoted the time/resources needed to win in the South.

See, I got what you implied, but you said before that whoever would have a home state march 1 would win big.  So I wanted a concrete, non-horoscope answer.  (Because you didn't check who had a home state before posting)

So, Ted Cruz will wil big March 1.  Is thst what you're saying?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 04, 2016, 03:06:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdCYMvaUcrA
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 04, 2016, 03:30:26 PM
Let us suppose that the numbers listed in the latest polls are somewhat right: with a very good ground operation, Cruz can add some 10% to his current standing. But it still won't be enough.

Therefore, the only way Cruz can win NH is if undeclared voters sign up to vote in the Republican primary, a very real possibility.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on February 04, 2016, 05:57:36 PM
Let us suppose that the numbers listed in the latest polls are somewhat right: with a very good ground operation, Cruz can add some 10% to his current standing. But it still won't be enough.

Therefore, the only way Cruz can win NH is if undeclared voters sign up to vote in the Republican primary, a very real possibility.

Define "very real possibility."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 04, 2016, 06:48:01 PM
An estimated 1 in 5 Republican voters in NH are evangelical. A very good ground operation can certainly increase the percentage in favor of a certain candidate. However, libertarian issues will have to be addressed in addition to religious concerns.

Let us remember that in 2004, John Kerry went from 11 points down to 9 points up in just a week and won by 12.

In NH there are some 380,000 unregistered voters (more than 40% of the electorate), who can vote either Rep. or Dem.

What then is a real possibility?

To capture a good percentage of the 300,000 people of faith who are not usually voting in NH: this certainly can be accomplished by a very strong conservative candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 05, 2016, 04:20:53 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O74XDI-o7xc

Jeb is the only politician running for President that isn't a cruel sociopath.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2016, 04:24:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O74XDI-o7xc

Jeb is the only politician running for President that isn't a cruel sociopath.

It is terrifying that a Bush is the least dangerous candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 05, 2016, 04:57:02 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-finds-eager-religious-audience-in-moderate-new-hampshire-217998
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on February 05, 2016, 06:56:38 PM
$100m. For a job that pays $400,000 a year for 4 years?

It but be one long ride of bribes and back handers to help get you your money back.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2016, 10:25:23 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-finds-eager-religious-audience-in-moderate-new-hampshire-217998 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-finds-eager-religious-audience-in-moderate-new-hampshire-217998)

Thought you said it wouldn't be enough?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 10, 2016, 01:12:33 AM
The NH primary was today.  I gave in and voted for Bernie.  It looks like he and Trump have won.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 10, 2016, 06:45:58 AM
As I have stated from the very start, the Republican contest will not begin in earnest until March 1 (SC is just a warm up).

In NH, the first and third place winners practically just showed up and got the delegates, while the other candidates essentially gave it all they had at their disposal.

With the exception of Cruz, all the other candidates have ignored the South, having behaved as if there are no Republican voters there; some rely on the endorsements from their own family or from a governor of a state, others have no ground operation, yet they somehow think it is all going to work out.

In any case, any Republican who will win the nomination will be up against collectivism/socialism/with a nuance of communism (Sanders), a very good opportunity to score a big win.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2016, 09:45:28 AM
The NH primary was today.  I gave in and voted for Bernie.  It looks like he and Trump have won.


What.
The.
Fuck?!


I thought NH was smarter than that!  Trump?  Really?


Well fuck.  I'm calling it, Trump is winning the nomination barring any GOP interferance.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 10, 2016, 10:15:39 AM
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/Donald-Trump-Ted-Cruz-AP-640x480.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 10, 2016, 11:47:44 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2016, 01:22:51 PM
CAN'T STUMP WON'T STUMP
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Shane on February 10, 2016, 02:45:36 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?

I love that blog
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2016, 05:56:51 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?

Interesting that a lot of sites are using similar titles with similar stories. Why is the media so afraid of Trump? They laughed at him when he "lost" Iowa. Is it not so funny anymore? Trump will make America great again and there is nothing these fuckers can do to stop it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2016, 06:39:54 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?

Interesting that a lot of sites are using similar titles with similar stories. Why is the media so afraid of Trump? They laughed at him when he "lost" Iowa. Is it not so funny anymore? Trump will make America great again and there is nothing these fuckers can do to stop it.
Because the corporate masters demand it.  They know that if Trump is president, they'll have to make a deal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 11, 2016, 08:36:34 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?

Interesting that a lot of sites are using similar titles with similar stories. Why is the media so afraid of Trump? They laughed at him when he "lost" Iowa. Is it not so funny anymore? Trump will make America great again and there is nothing these fuckers can do to stop it.

Maybe because the last time an ego driven demagogue with floppy hair rode to power on the back of "I'll make this country great again" buoyed along by the prejudice of retards, we had a world war?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 11, 2016, 01:24:06 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/the_gop_establishment_s_candidates_will_not_perform_well_against_donald.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 11, 2016, 02:57:17 PM
Maybe because the last time an ego driven demagogue with floppy hair rode to power on the back of "I'll make this country great again" buoyed along by the prejudice of retards, we had a world war?

Hitler objectively made Germany great again. Germany went from a economic mess to the most powerful country in Europe, and arguably it still is.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 11, 2016, 03:48:36 PM
Maybe because the last time an ego driven demagogue with floppy hair rode to power on the back of "I'll make this country great again" buoyed along by the prejudice of retards, we had a world war?

Hitler objectively made Germany great again. Germany went from a economic mess to the most powerful country in Europe, and arguably it still is.

Point! But that was a long term effect and after half the country had been occupied by the Russians for years and most of their cities had been reduced to rubble.
From an outsiders point of view there are few if any American cities that wouldn't benefit from this, but as a local is it a risk you want to take, you will get to wear a uniform for a while, but it won't be up to standards of the Hugo Boss designed ones the Nazi's had, probably some Hilfiger nightmare. The plus point would be that there would be a great coming together of white, black and Hispanic,... as you languish together in Chinese concentration camps.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 11, 2016, 04:16:02 PM
Point! But that was a long term effect and after half the country had been occupied by the Russians for years and most of their cities had been reduced to rubble.
From an outsiders point of view there are few if any American cities that wouldn't benefit from this, but as a local is it a risk you want to take, you will get to wear a uniform for a while, but it won't be up to standards of the Hugo Boss designed ones the Nazi's had, probably some Hilfiger nightmare. The plus point would be that there would be a great coming together of white, black and Hispanic,... as you languish together in Chinese concentration camps.

It took the entire planet a decade to stop Hitler. How long do you think it will take to stop God-Emperor Trump?

Also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB259lgEorA
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2016, 07:48:30 PM
Something I realized: Trump supporters want what they claim Obama is doing now.


Hear me out.
They want someone who lies (Trump has lied)
They want someone who will do things no matter what. (Who needs congressional approval)
They want someone with no political experience (A cry in 2008 was Obama having no real experience)
They want someone arrogant, vein, selfish, greedy, and good at making backroom deals. (This is Trump summarized)
They want someone who will fail at foreign policy (Trump would start WW3)
They want someone who will make oil many times more expensive in the US. (When you insult muslims, you insult OPEC, and right now, they're crashing the oil market so you bet they can raise it up.  See the 1970s oil embargo)
They want a racist.
They want someone who will disregard the law and constitution at his leisure.  (So long as its not against me)

So, Tump supporters want the Obama image they see as their leader. 

I also predjct a Trump presidency will have more executive orders than Obama.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 11, 2016, 09:11:57 PM
Dave summarily proved Trump will be as good a president as Obama is.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2016, 09:28:42 PM
They want someone who lies (Trump has lied)

No more than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Quote
They want someone who will do things no matter what. (Who needs congressional approval)
Quote
They want someone with no political experience (A cry in 2008 was Obama having no real experience)

So you acknowledge that he's never held public office, but you also claim to know what he will do in public office based on no precedence whatsoever. Fascinating.

Quote
They want someone arrogant, vein, selfish, greedy, and good at making backroom deals. (This is Trump summarized)

Trump is the only candidate who's not lining his pockets with massive campaign contributions. He's the only candidate placing himself and his agenda before the money. How is that selfish or greedy?

Quote
They want someone who will fail at foreign policy (Trump would start WW3)

Trump would have by far the best relations with Russia out of any of the candidates, and his experience with international trade makes him more qualified than any other candidate.

Quote
They want someone who will make oil many times more expensive in the US. (When you insult muslims, you insult OPEC, and right now, they're crashing the oil market so you bet they can raise it up.  See the 1970s oil embargo)

There's no reason to believe this is remotely true. Trump's interests in curbing terrorism more or less align with OPEC's.

Quote
They want a racist.

Trump has never stated anything that would suggest he is a racist, and any claims to that effect are nothing but pure slander.
 
Quote
They want someone who will disregard the law and constitution at his leisure.  (So long as its not against me)

Again, there's no precedence for Trump disregarding the law or the constitution in public office.

Quote
So, Tump supporters want the Obama image they see as their leader. 

I also predjct a Trump presidency will have more executive orders than Obama.

Cool story.

I give this liberal shame-rhetoric a PolitiFact™ rating of Mostly True™.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 11, 2016, 09:56:32 PM
Point! But that was a long term effect and after half the country had been occupied by the Russians for years and most of their cities had been reduced to rubble.
From an outsiders point of view there are few if any American cities that wouldn't benefit from this, but as a local is it a risk you want to take, you will get to wear a uniform for a while, but it won't be up to standards of the Hugo Boss designed ones the Nazi's had, probably some Hilfiger nightmare. The plus point would be that there would be a great coming together of white, black and Hispanic,... as you languish together in Chinese concentration camps.

It took the entire planet a decade to stop Hitler. How long do you think it will take to stop God-Emperor Trump?



To stop the God-Emperor!

There are similarities, but there are some major differences. Both twisted populists but one was a gifted orator  "What luck for rulers that men do not think" never truer than now, but Trump? He gets an audience member to say that Ted Cruz is a pussy.
Hitler had an organised cadre of supporters all singing the same song, Trump is a one man band. Hitler was able to unite a country, largely through fear and terror, Trump will split America open. Germany new what war meant, Americans play at war, it's remote controlled, it's Hollywood and call of duty.
He will be stopped, hopefully Americans love of shooting each other will see to it first, otherwise there may not be an awful lot left when it's done.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2016, 10:24:15 PM
What is it with lefties and rushing into apocalyptic scenarios? I don't like Trump either, but I strongly doubt he's going to suddenly fuck the world up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2016, 10:42:11 PM
What is it with lefties and rushing into apocalyptic scenarios? I don't like Trump either, but I strongly doubt he's going to suddenly fuck the world up.

There was a ton of similar nonsense from the right when Obama won reelection.  No political faction has a monopoly on goofy doomsaying.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2016, 10:52:44 PM
Right-wingers accused Obama of planning to start WW3? Could you show me some examples of that? I mean, I'm sure there was a fringe somewhere out there, but I strongly doubt you could compare that to the Trump doomsayers.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 11, 2016, 10:58:23 PM
What is it with lefties and rushing into apocalyptic scenarios? I don't like Trump either, but I strongly doubt he's going to suddenly fuck the world up.

Ah! but it is so much fun.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2016, 11:01:04 PM
Jura, lay off the whiskey, you're starting to lose it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2016, 11:05:36 PM
Right-wingers accused Obama of planning to start WW3? Could you show me some examples of that? I mean, I'm sure there was a fringe somewhere out there, but I strongly doubt you could compare that to the Trump doomsayers.

I don't know about a world war specifically, but there was plenty of gibberish about concentration camps, the economy collapsing, and, uh, the literal apocalypse:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/01/3607416/4-things-2015-obama-reelected/

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/01/20/two-years-after-apocalyptic-predictions-related-obama-presidency-life-goes
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2016, 11:36:27 PM
Right, don't take me wrong, but left-wing media claiming that the right said something isn't exactly all that convincing.

In Trump's case, we have gems like this (https://archive.is/7wlfF) plastered across seemingly "normal" (i.e. not considered radical) liberal media. I think a fair comparison would be Fox News putting out a feature on Obama's concentration camps on their front page, for example.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2016, 11:45:24 PM
Right, don't take me wrong, but left-wing media claiming that the right said something isn't exactly all that convincing.

In Trump's case, we have gems like this (https://archive.is/7wlfF) plastered across seemingly "normal" (i.e. not considered radical) liberal media. I think a fair comparison would be Fox News putting out a feature on Obama's concentration camps on their front page, for example.

This is just tangentially related, but if you're linking to archive.is, could you also provide the original source if it's available? Many people cannot access archive.is (including people from Finland like myself) as the site admin is a proponent of censorship.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2016, 01:11:49 AM
In this particular case, I'm linking to an archived homepage of HuffPo featuring this:

(http://i.imgur.com/o2N7gJy.png)

The original is unavailable since the homepage has since changed :(
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on February 12, 2016, 02:48:03 AM
In this particular case, I'm linking to an archived homepage of HuffPo featuring this:

(http://i.imgur.com/o2N7gJy.png)

The original is unavailable since the homepage has since changed :(

I admit it's a blaringly sensationalist headline, but do you really not think Trump has shown himself to be all three of those things?  Comparing it to talk of "Obama's concentration camps" (which I'm assuming don't actually exist in the real world, though you can correct me if I'm wrong) seems to go a bit on the deep end.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 12, 2016, 04:16:53 AM
Right, don't take me wrong, but left-wing media claiming that the right said something isn't exactly all that convincing.

All right, are these sources acceptable, then?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266285251515531264

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/11/14/market-selloff-after-obamas-re-election-no-accident-recession-coming/

http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-faber-obama-is-a-disaster-the-stock-market-should-have-fallen-50-and-you-should-buy-yourself-a-machine-gun-2012-11

http://www.newsmax.com/Outbrain/Limbaugh-doomed-Obama-re-elected/2012/09/11/id/451480/

Quote
In Trump's case, we have gems like this (https://archive.is/7wlfF) plastered across seemingly "normal" (i.e. not considered radical) liberal media. I think a fair comparison would be Fox News putting out a feature on Obama's concentration camps on their front page, for example.

Wait, are we talking about hysterical predictions of doom here, or just sensationalist ad hominem attacks?  I shouldn't have to provide an example of the side I'm criticizing endorsing a loony conspiracy theory if you're just providing an example of the side you're criticizing simply calling someone names.  And on that count, Fox has certainly made their fair share of silly personal attacks, my personal favorite being the time Sean Hannity implied Obama was a snob for putting Dijon mustard on his burger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2016, 08:07:24 AM
I don't have the time or energy to respond to Blanko except to say that my statements did indeed have exaggeration.  I'll try to back it up but no promises.


As for WW3, here's why I think that.

Trumo has made 2 statements that will cause international anger:
Make Mexico pay for a wall.
Ban all Muslims from entering America.

Mexico:
Mexico isn't going to pay for it.  Congress sure as hell won't either.  And just forcing the issue could easily casue Mexico to make trade more difficult.  In retaliation, Trump may try to suspend NAFTA in some way or close the southern border.  If Mexico stands firm, it could hurt the US economic sector that relies on "Made in Mexico." In response and to avoid looking weak, Trump threatens military action. Mexico calls the bluff.  Trump invades.

Great excuse to attack the US.  (Attacking an Ally)

Middle East:
Ban on muslims creates uproar in many nations, most notably Middle Eastern.  OPEC responds with another oil Embargo.  The fracking wells and tar sand wells have been devistated by the low price so they'll take time to ramp back up.  Frustration and demand for action would prompt Trump to launch an attack.  A show of force to prove America is Great.


Far fetched?  Maybe.  But so is alot of things until they happen.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 12, 2016, 09:01:08 AM

But Seriously folks!

If “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” where else has he got to go? If the population of the USA proves itself dumber than it looks and he does get in, his supporters, dragged along by hate speak and bar room rhetoric, are going to expect him to back up his promises on having the biggest army on earth and not taking shit from no one, his ability to bluster a deal using leverage in corporate America (4 times bankrupt?). Doesn’t make him a match for Putin and his team of KGB trained manipulators or the Chinese hierarchy where political survival can be a life or death struggle, the antithesis of “speak softly and carry a big stick” he will swagger around until someone gives him a bloody nose, then where?

Now where’s the Whiskey?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2016, 10:04:09 AM
On the other side, the DNC seems to hate Sanders.

http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-superdelegates-just-screwed-over-bernie-sanders-and-spit-in-the-faces-of-voters/

Anyone else think Clinton is the favored candidate?  I mean, O'Malley didn't even get a headline until he quit.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 12, 2016, 01:46:26 PM
Even if the US actually invaded Mexico the most we'd ever get is a stern warning letter from the UN. No country on the planet can afford to sanction us, no country on the planet can afford to go to war with us. Welcome to globalism.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2016, 02:49:45 PM
Even if the US actually invaded Mexico the most we'd ever get is a stern warning letter from the UN. No country on the planet can afford to sanction us, no country on the planet can afford to go to war with us. Welcome to globalism.

That bothers me greatly.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 12, 2016, 07:51:33 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sc-poll-trump-32-cruz-26-rubio-20-bush-10/article/2001032
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2016, 11:18:13 PM
Wait, are we talking about hysterical predictions of doom here, or just sensationalist ad hominem attacks?  I shouldn't have to provide an example of the side I'm criticizing endorsing a loony conspiracy theory if you're just providing an example of the side you're criticizing simply calling someone names.
Jura already provided us with an example. Remember what prompted me to ask the question in the first place? Everyday liberals are talking doomsday. That's a bit "out there". You can try and match it up with the far right, but that's still comparing the "norm" to the "extreme" on the opposite side.

I admit it's a blaringly sensationalist headline, but do you really not think Trump has shown himself to be all three of those things?
I don't think he has. I don't think he's *right*, but he's not bigoted either.

Comparing it to talk of "Obama's concentration camps" (which I'm assuming don't actually exist in the real world, though you can correct me if I'm wrong) seems to go a bit on the deep end.
I'm not sure why everyone suddenly thinks I'm comparing anything here. I criticised Jura for this literally-Hitler-doomsday-time post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg89593#msg89593) and claimed that many liberals seem to do that. Saddam then responded by pointing out that there are loonies on both sides, and he compared it to the "Obama concentration camps" claims. I then asked for examples, and tangentially brought up HuffPo as a hilariously bad sensationalist heading.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266285251515531264
No doomsday, no concentration camps, no claims of bigotry, just an accurate statement of the economic situation at the time and a spot-on identification of the cause. Your point?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/11/14/market-selloff-after-obamas-re-election-no-accident-recession-coming/
Again, not quite on topic. Saying that Obama fucked over the economy by the end of his second term is hardly a groundbreaking statement, and it's definitely not what you promised me.

http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-faber-obama-is-a-disaster-the-stock-market-should-have-fallen-50-and-you-should-buy-yourself-a-machine-gun-2012-11
At least this guy is sensationalist. Still, nowhere near comparable.

http://www.newsmax.com/Outbrain/Limbaugh-doomed-Obama-re-elected/2012/09/11/id/451480/
Unless you're saying we should take the word "doomed" literally (please don't), I don't see your point. Limbaugh gonna Limbaugh, and he's still not accusing Obama of even being a dictator.

It really seems like you're trying to make a comparison between "w0w Obama did/does/will fuck over the economy!!!" to "NH GOES RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC [by supporting Trump]" or "Y'know, Trump and Hitler are p. similar fam". I sincerely don't think that's a fair comparison in the slightest.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 13, 2016, 04:00:15 PM
Trump is literally Hitler he will world war 3 and holocaust the Mexicans. Like share and upboat this message if you don't you're a cis het xenophobic racist

Vote 4 Bernie he will give us free liberal arts degrees
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 13, 2016, 04:17:03 PM
http://atruthsoldier.com/fema-extermination-camps/

w0w why are righties such lunatics?  The equivalent to this would be MSNBC running a headline telling all white people to kill themselves to make up for slavery.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 13, 2016, 04:50:23 PM
Saddam, honey, we already talked about comparing the far right to the everyday left, and why doing that would be shit. Don't waste our time.

Now, can you or can you not back up your original claim in a straight-forward, honest manner?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 13, 2016, 09:46:34 PM
I don't know Sexpest, but yet again I suspect a bit of ASD (observation not insult), I don't think you see that Rushy and I were actually just using ridiculous scenario construction as a  bonding technique, yes he is likely to be the other side of the barricades to me come the glorious day (whilst you sit in a corner rocking with your head in your hands), but we were fucking about.
Or maybe (less likely), you do have a sense of humour and you do see, but want to get under Saddam's skin soo much.
Anyway off topic, as to your point, why do lefties go doomsday? When ever a right-wing loon comes into power in America, they are by definition of low intellect (see Reagan, Bush), so the thinkers (lefties) can't help but imagine “ what happens if the wheels come off”, meaning maybe their carers step outside and leave them next to the doomsday button or near the red phone when the Russians ring, it's not happened yet but it could, luckily up to yet they have some hideous self serving (but intelligent and articulate) British Prime minister to keep them on track, Reagan had Maggie and Bush had the equally awful Blair, unfortunately Trump wouldn't have any-one, mainly because he is under the misapprehension that he doesn't need them, but anyway we only have the moonfaced Cameron at the moment and he doesn't cut it, so just maybe worry a bit, it's what we do.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 13, 2016, 10:07:35 PM
Right...

I'm just going to slowly... back... away...

Saddam, I'm going to consider my point to be proven and self-evident, given the above.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 13, 2016, 10:23:13 PM
Holy mother of run-on sentences...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 13, 2016, 11:33:47 PM
Lol jura

Anyone who has ever been President is far more intelligent than most of the country. Anyone capable of mass manipulation, regardless of their endearing cohorts, is of utmost intelligence. In fact most candidates themselves have more leadership and intellect than most. By claiming what they are doing is unintelligent, you're basically saying it's easy, and if it's easy, a lot more people would be able to do it.

You could say that some weren't very knowledgeable, but I do hope you're not conflating knowledge with intelligence.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2016, 12:10:47 AM
Lol jura

Anyone who has ever been President is far more intelligent than most of the country. Anyone capable of mass manipulation, regardless of their endearing cohorts, is of utmost intelligence. In fact most candidates themselves have more leadership and intellect than most. By claiming what they are doing is unintelligent, you're basically saying it's easy, and if it's easy, a lot more people would be able to do it.

You could say that some weren't very knowledgeable, but I do hope you're not conflating knowledge with intelligence.

One can be stupid and still have a following.  Trump is mostly just saying what a large, angry portion of America repeats.  The difference is that he has money, is a known name, and isn't afraid of the lime light nor shys from it.  Your average, angry American will complain to coworkers or on facebook, but wouldn't have the courage or confidence to say the same thing out on the streets or up on a stage.  Nor would they want to give up their jobs to pursue public office.

That said, I do believe Donald Trump is saying and doing the things he does intentionally so, yes, he is intelligent.  What scares me is if he wants to do them anyway.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 14, 2016, 12:45:22 AM
I don't care what Trump believes anymore. He called Ted Cruz a pussy on live television. He has my vote.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: junker on February 14, 2016, 03:48:15 AM
It doesn't matter who wins the Presidency now that Scalia croaked. The liberals will overtake the SC.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 14, 2016, 04:26:17 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to call Bush or Trump unintelligent, but it's the sort of personality, or attitude towards politics that they seem to share that bothers me.  It's like there's an emphasis on bravado, swagger, and the appearance of resolute fearlessness at all times, as if any display of patience, humility, or thoughtfulness immediately translates into weakness or self-doubt in the public sphere.  It's a great way to win an election, but an awful way to run a country, and I don't see Trump suddenly switching gears and adopting a more nuanced approach if he were to be elected.  There's a very interesting article about this attitude and its effect on Bush's presidency that's worth a read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html

My favorite part is Karl Rove's creepy monologue about the "reality-based community."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on February 14, 2016, 04:26:48 AM
It doesn't matter who wins the Presidency now that Scalia croaked. The liberals will overtake the SC.

Don't worry, the Republicans will ensure there's a vacancy in his spot until after the election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on February 15, 2016, 05:55:11 PM
Vote 4 Bernie he will give us free liberal arts degrees
And he'll give living wages to everybody regardless if they want to work or not, and pay off the debt, and free healthcare with a government run single payer system, and do it all by taking back the money from rich people or corporations and using those funds, and it will last forever.

Yep, the US can be a model socialist utopia just like Venezuela.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 15, 2016, 10:32:45 PM
And he'll give living wages to everybody regardless if they want to work or not, and pay off the debt, and free healthcare with a government run single payer system, and do it all by taking back the money from rich people or corporations and using those funds, and it will last forever.

Yep, the US can be a model socialist utopia just like Venezuela.

Let's just be happy that Bernie Sanders, even if elected, will die from old age before he can do anything meaningful in office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2016, 10:39:16 PM
Bernie "Hnnnngh" Sanders
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 16, 2016, 06:19:06 AM
A question for all the Trump supporters here: how well do you think he will do in the upcoming primary in SC?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 16, 2016, 10:25:08 PM
Lol jura

Anyone who has ever been President is far more intelligent than most of the country. Anyone capable of mass manipulation, regardless of their endearing cohorts, is of utmost intelligence. In fact most candidates themselves have more leadership and intellect than most. By claiming what they are doing is unintelligent, you're basically saying it's easy, and if it's easy, a lot more people would be able to do it.

You could say that some weren't very knowledgeable, but I do hope you're not conflating knowledge with intelligence.

LOL Rushy,

"I know that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully" Bush!

He may well be more intelligent than most of you, (which would explain alot) but on a world wide perspective? No.

Your only hope is Bernie.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 17, 2016, 01:12:26 AM
LOL Rushy,

"I know that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully" Bush!

He may well be more intelligent than most of you, (which would explain alot) but on a world wide perspective? No.

This is an impressive amount of illusory superiority.

Your only hope is Bernie.

Bernie "I can state what the problem is but not the solution" Sanders? That Bernie? The last time we had a bunch of idiots state what the problem is but have no idea how to solve it we got the Affordable Care Act to "solve" our healthcare crisis by giving millions of government dollars to the insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms that were fucking us in the first place.

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12718364_1087151531329602_4103902408220608278_n.jpg?oh=83532f660ce5766c7105ad082bce8199&oe=572B8D82)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 04:05:40 AM
The last time we had a bunch of idiots state what the problem is but have no idea how to solve it we got the Affordable Care Act to "solve" our healthcare crisis by giving millions of government dollars to the insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms that were fucking us in the first place.

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12718364_1087151531329602_4103902408220608278_n.jpg?oh=83532f660ce5766c7105ad082bce8199&oe=572B8D82)

That's the American way.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2016, 07:00:29 AM
http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/02/15/south-carolina-race-close-cruz-catches-trump/

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/right-to-rise-poll-finds-trump-cruz-in-tight-race
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 17, 2016, 12:32:45 PM
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35594007

god fucking damn it jeb get a pr person
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: lolwut? on February 17, 2016, 08:23:43 PM
http://www.jebbush.com (http://www.jebbush.com)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 17, 2016, 09:03:43 PM
Rushy already posted that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O74XDI-o7xc

Jeb is the only politician running for President that isn't a cruel sociopath.

keep up bro
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 21, 2016, 01:40:40 AM
Ayy my main man Trump won South Carolina. Make America Great Again!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWT_cm8XAAA-nNK.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 21, 2016, 02:33:41 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/us/politics/jeb-bush.html

I'm surprised he would drop out so soon, but I guess the writing's been on the wall for some time now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2016, 06:50:13 AM
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

Let us focus on the Republican primaries.

Obviously, in Iowa, the evangelical vote will matter most.


So, one week later, the candidate who wins Iowa might get second or third place in NH.

Given the large number of well-known strong candidates, the SC primary might not be a clear indication of what will happen three months down the road.

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.

The number of candidates will then narrow considerably: conservative side vs. moderate (establishment) side.


The Republican contest will actually begin on March 1; let us see what will happen on that day.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 21, 2016, 07:40:29 AM
Ayy my main man Trump won South Carolina. Make America Great Again!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWT_cm8XAAA-nNK.jpg)
Fuck....

Tump is on a roll.  At this rate, he'll be against Hillary.  By that point, his victory is assured.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 21, 2016, 05:32:08 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/wC7OUSt.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2016, 11:37:30 AM
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/02/20-donald-trump-south-carolina-overestimation-hudak

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/why-donald-trump-cant-win-the-white-house/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 23, 2016, 01:21:05 PM
I like how Levee has gone from vague nonsense  predictions to just posting other people's opinions. What's wrong, buddy? You scared of Trump's high energy campaign to make America great again?

I am upping the ante on my prediction. I predict that, not only will Trump win the nomination, but he will win the general election. In January 2017, we will be welcoming Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 23, 2016, 01:26:38 PM
I like how Levee has gone from vague nonsense  predictions to just posting other people's opinions. What's wrong, buddy? You scared of Trump's high energy campaign to make America great again?

I am upping the ante on my prediction. I predict that, not only will Trump win the nomination, but he will win the general election. In January 2017, we will be welcoming Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.

I reluctantly agree.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2016, 02:07:09 PM
rushy, you can't be that naive, or can you?

Trump is acting following a script, that's all.

To make America great (again), one must deal with the Fed, the national debt that cannot be paid anymore, and much more.

Why do you think the electoral landscape was radically altered, by moving up the primary dates for several states, on March 1?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2016, 06:53:56 PM
To make America great again, requires a fundamental change in philosophy (metaphysics: study of the universe, epistemology: study of knowledge and ethics: values/virtues).

Politics is a branch of ethics, it is the product of a philosophic system.

This is what has to change, from collectivism/pragmatism/progressive movement/statism/democracy (tyranny by the majority) to the philosophy of inner synarchy.

America today is the result of the catastrophic political decisions based on the philosophy of statism:

The trashing of the Constitution by Abraham Lincoln

The Sherman Antitrust Act

The unprecedented entry of the government in the fields of finance

The New Deal of the thirties

The pressure-group pragmatism of the political parties which demand controls (government intervention)


Toward Soviet America by William Z. Foster. Head of the Communist Party USA, Foster indicates that a National Department of Education would be one of the means used to develop a new socialist society in the U.S (which actually came into being in 1979-1980).

Co-signer of the Humanist Manifesto, C.F. Potter said in 1930:  "Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 24, 2016, 12:33:57 PM
Bibliographical references for the Lincoln affair:

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-mr-lincolns-war-an-irrepressible-conflict-1440

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lincfasc.html

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/03/the-imaginary-abe-a-reply-to-harry-jaffas-in-re-jack-kemp-v-joe-sobran.html


The staging of the Lincoln "assassination":

http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2016, 12:53:06 PM
Bibliographical references for the Lincoln affair:

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-mr-lincolns-war-an-irrepressible-conflict-1440

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lincfasc.html

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/03/the-imaginary-abe-a-reply-to-harry-jaffas-in-re-jack-kemp-v-joe-sobran.html


The staging of the Lincoln "assassination":

http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf
Lincolin's death is irrelevant to the 2016 elections.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 24, 2016, 03:23:04 PM
Basically, Dave, Levee is a Cruz supporter who is having a mental meltdown because Cruz is very obviously not going to win. Levee is now hoping that someone literally kills Trump just so he can be right about something for once in his life.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 24, 2016, 03:37:46 PM
I am not a Cruz supporter.

I have been merely pointing out to you the strange things that occurred during the past three months: Trump not attending the debate prior to the Iowa primary, Two Corinthians, the media attacks on Cruz, and many other subtle facts, which could not have happened by chance.

All of you here are under the impression that Trump actually believes that American will be great again, or that he is financially independent, not taking orders from anybody.

Trump is not part of the upper echelon of power, he only acts out the part he has been given in this electoral process.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 24, 2016, 03:43:22 PM
Who do you support?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 24, 2016, 04:21:17 PM
I support the underground American president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2016, 06:57:15 PM
I am not a Cruz supporter.

I have been merely pointing out to you the strange things that occurred during the past three months: Trump not attending the debate prior to the Iowa primary, Two Corinthians, the media attacks on Cruz, and many other subtle facts, which could not have happened by chance.

All of you here are under the impression that Trump actually believes that American will be great again, or that he is financially independent, not taking orders from anybody.

Trump is not part of the upper echelon of power, he only acts out the part he has been given in this electoral process.
I don't.
Trump is running for other reasons than political power.  He's already rich and owns a lot of stuff with his name on it.  POTUS is a lot of stress that I'm sure he realizes.  He either knows he can't do the things he says or he thinks he can and is delusional.

Also:
What the hell is "Two Corinthians" supposed to mean?


But seriously, you're honestly thinking we think politics and this presidential run is fair? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 24, 2016, 07:11:19 PM
Levee supports moleman for president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2016, 07:20:06 PM
Levee supports moleman for president.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Hans_Moleman.png)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 07:24:47 AM
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/24/cavuto-your-world-exclusive-romney-calls-trump-release-his-tax-records-theres-reason

The reason I replaced my messages with Vril Society images (not Nazi), was to delete the portions where I reminded everyone that this website is run by people who are NOT actual FE believers (the very reason they refuse to include my proven and tested AFET in the faq).

Does everyone here know what an "underground American president" is?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 25, 2016, 07:43:49 AM
Google says no one knows what that is.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 07:45:23 AM
http://soshable.com/why-trump-is-hiding-his-tax-returns-from-voters/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/02/22/trumps-word-salads-conceal-his-ignorance/


No wonder.

Try another search: the Kennedy assassinations were staged.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 01:08:28 PM
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/donald-trump-hiding-bombshell-in-tax-returns-mitt-romney/articleshow/51136198.cms

However, the following article was written four days ago, before it became a headline:

http://socialnewswatch.com/2016/02/20/if-trumps-tax-returns-didnt-contain-a-bombshell-he-would-have-released-them-already/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 25, 2016, 01:18:26 PM
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/donald-trump-hiding-bombshell-in-tax-returns-mitt-romney/articleshow/51136198.cms

However, the following article was written four days ago, before it became a headline:

http://socialnewswatch.com/2016/02/20/if-trumps-tax-returns-didnt-contain-a-bombshell-he-would-have-released-them-already/

Yeah and?
Donald Trump having politically damning tax returns is not news.  Just putting his income with 9 digits is enough to turn people off.  Or should.

It won't, unless it shows he pays like 5% tax or something.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 25, 2016, 01:24:28 PM
By Trump's own admission, he could shoot a man on fifth avenue in broad daylight and he wouldn't lose any voters. I don't give a shit what his tax returns say, and I doubt anyone that is voting for him does, either.

Levee doesn't want to make America great again. He wants Cruz to tell him sweet lies.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 01:24:47 PM
This article was written on February 1, 2016:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/02/01/when-will-donald-trumps-tax-returns-be-public/


People are, and should be, very concerned about his tax returns and the reason why he continually postpones releasing them to the public.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 01:41:41 PM
This is from three days ago, it features Trump's own responses to the question about the tax returns:

http://www.fultonpostnews.com/opinion/donald-trumps-tax-return-dodge-h27600.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on February 25, 2016, 01:53:18 PM
lrn2CapitalGainsTax. By taking a low salary and earning the majority of their wealth in dividends the ultra-rich can avoid roughly half the %'s that the rest of us are taxed at.  Sam Walton didn't take a ridiculously low salary because it was cute or because of some nebulous sense of company pride. He did it for the tax breaks. That's just the beginning too, there are many tricks that the rich can do to pay much lower percentages that would make the rest of us balk. (setting up charities, shell companies, and even flat-out avoiding the aforementioned capital gains tax are a few perfectly legal ways to lower your taxes)

Trump doesn't want people to see what % he gets taxed at because his opposition will accuse him of avoiding taxes. When in reality, we should be much, much more concerned about his mental stability it he were not taking advantage of these legal tax loopholes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 25, 2016, 01:58:31 PM
I would definitely prefer to make my income with qualified dividends instead of wages.

Most people are just hoping Trump is doing something terrible, like when Mitt Romney's tax returns showed that he was using the Mormon Church to siphon taxfree money.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 02:07:49 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/25/4-questions-voters-need-donald-trump-to-stop-dodging/ (one might think that it is question #2 that is most important, the tax returns issue; no, question #4 is even more challenging)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2016, 09:58:53 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4OwJOVi0ec

Vicente Fox,  (former) President of Mexico
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2016, 11:44:53 AM
There is actually a massive amount of options we have at our disposal to force Mexico to pay for the wall. Cutting foreign aid or bringing back Mexican import taxes are two good examples floating around right now.

Trump, hilariously enough, could force them to effectively pay for the wall and bring back the jobs manufacturers are sending over there. Very effective.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on February 26, 2016, 01:29:33 PM
There is actually a massive amount of options we have at our disposal to force Mexico to pay for the wall. Cutting foreign aid or bringing back Mexican import taxes are two good examples floating around right now.

Trump, hilariously enough, could force them to effectively pay for the wall and bring back the jobs manufacturers are sending over there. Very effective.

But then the price of your shit goes up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 26, 2016, 01:33:18 PM
There is actually a massive amount of options we have at our disposal to force Mexico to pay for the wall. Cutting foreign aid or bringing back Mexican import taxes are two good examples floating around right now.

Trump, hilariously enough, could force them to effectively pay for the wall and bring back the jobs manufacturers are sending over there. Very effective.

Wouldn't import tax require the removal of NAFTA?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2016, 02:02:16 PM
But then the price of your shit goes up.

Freedom isn't free.

Wouldn't import tax require the removal of NAFTA?

Trump called NAFTA "a disaster" and wanted to break it entirely.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 26, 2016, 05:38:41 PM
But then the price of your shit goes up.

Freedom isn't free.
Tell that to the walmart shoppers.

Quote
Wouldn't import tax require the removal of NAFTA?

Trump called NAFTA "a disaster" and wanted to break it entirely.
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2016, 05:43:40 PM
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.

I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on February 26, 2016, 06:16:15 PM
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.

I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
You have a national deficit. Your imports exceed your exports. You are giving people dollars that you print as you need them, in exchange for real goods and services. Who needs who?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2016, 06:29:31 PM
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.

I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
You have a national deficit. Your imports exceed your exports. You are giving people dollars that you print as you need them, in exchange for real goods and services. Who needs who?

The real question is why is the world dumb enough to keep giving us resources for thin sheets of green paper that we print out billions of everyday.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 05:40:22 AM
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.

I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
You have a national deficit. Your imports exceed your exports. You are giving people dollars that you print as you need them, in exchange for real goods and services. Who needs who?

The real question is why is the world dumb enough to keep giving us resources for thin sheets of green paper that we print out billions of everyday.

Because worse come to worst we got the bullets to back up the bullshit
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 27, 2016, 06:14:15 AM
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/24/america_youre_stupid_donald_trumps_political_triumph_makes_it_official_were_a_nation_of_idiots/

Yesterday, Trump was asked again about his tax returns: "I won't release them."

The reporter asked again: We called the IRS and they said nothing precludes you from releasing not only this year's tax returns, but also the returns for the past years. Trump dodged the question.

Certainly by June those tax returns will have to be released and it will mean another reason for the delegates at the convention to withdraw their vote for Trump.


In a direct confrontation, Sanders will win against Trump (I was the only one to suggest that Sanders does have a good chance at becoming the Democractic nominee, contrary to what our friend Rushy was posting at the same time, back on December 12).

I also said that a brokered convention is very possible: all Cruz has to do is win some 4 states on Tuesday, and wait until the party rules will put an end to Trump's ascension in the polls.

Everyone in the Republican party knows that Cruz can win big against either Sanders or Hillary: why then would they have subjected themselves to this ordeal, when they could have stopped Trump from using their platform from the very start?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 06:31:16 AM
If Sanders doesn't get the nomination I'm voting for Trump out of spite.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 27, 2016, 09:28:44 AM
What Trump has done is to practically launch an independent bid for the presidency, using the Republican party as a platform.

He won't listen to the leaders of the party, he has disdain for politicians (including Republicans).

Question: why then would the GOP put up with something like this from the very start?

Certainly they could have stopped Trump in his tracks one year ago, by informing him that he is welcome to run as an independent.

Does it make any sense at all for noted, public, respected Republican leaders to complain NOW that Trump is not a true conservative, and actually does not represent the party?

Therefore, there is only one way out of this mystery: it was all planned from the beginning in order to achieve a certain goal.

No other candidate (democrat or republican), for the past 50 years, would have been able to make it past the first primary under the public's scrutiny, having to deal with the "Trump university scam" and the "tax returns issue". Yet, so far, Trump has been spared what would have been a devastating inquiry into his finances/business practices, one which would have spelled the end of a political career for any other candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 12:47:01 PM
Sanders has no chance to be nominated. He has already lost. Sanders' key support demographic isn't old enough to vote and the ones that can don't even bother showing up to the primary polls. Democrat turnout this year is abysmal. In addition to all of this, Bernie doesn't excite people; he bores them.

Hillary will win the nomination and then lose to God Emperor Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 27, 2016, 01:26:08 PM
The information in Trump's tax filings forms the basis of his claim that he, above all other candidates, has the business and negotiating skills to "make America great again."

His pretentions to leadership are directly related to those tax returns he absolutely does not want to release.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 03:15:08 PM
The information in Trump's tax filings forms the basis of his claim that he, above all other candidates, has the business and negotiating skills to "make America great again."

His pretentions to leadership are directly related to those tax returns he absolutely does not want to release.

Are you really surprised that someone doesn't want to post their private finances to the public? Would you want to post your tax returns on this forum?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 05:29:15 PM
The information in Trump's tax filings forms the basis of his claim that he, above all other candidates, has the business and negotiating skills to "make America great again."

His pretentions to leadership are directly related to those tax returns he absolutely does not want to release.

Are you really surprised that someone doesn't want to post their private finances to the public? Would you want to post your tax returns on this forum?

If they couldn't force Barry to present his birth certificate as proof that he was even eligible to run as president they definitely can't force you to release your tax returns.

It's all a big show, trump is around to keep the flame kindled on racism because they know it's dying out on a popular level. Sanders is the flicker of hope à la Ron Paul they give us every few cycles, and Clinton represents business as usual.

Does anyone really think that the keys to our country would be given to someone that may only be around for four years? Anything they really want to implement is planned years in advance and done regardless who is in office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 07:02:49 PM
If they couldn't force Barry to present his birth certificate as proof that he was even eligible to run as president they definitely can't force you to release your tax returns.

It's all a big show, trump is around to keep the flame kindled on racism because they know it's dying out on a popular level. Sanders is the flicker of hope à la Ron Paul they give us every few cycles, and Clinton represents business as usual.

Does anyone really think that the keys to our country would be given to someone that may only be around for four years? Anything they really want to implement is planned years in advance and done regardless who is in office.

How is Trump going to "keep the flame kindled on racism" if he has never said anything remotely racist? I don't understand where all this "TRUMP IS WAICIST" nonsense is coming from when no one can actually give me any quotes from Trump that prove racism.

The only racist things I've ever seen during this election is Bernie voters complaining that blacks are "too uneducated to realize Bernie is best for them." That's their only response to the fact that minority voters prefer Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 07:46:06 PM
If they couldn't force Barry to present his birth certificate as proof that he was even eligible to run as president they definitely can't force you to release your tax returns.

It's all a big show, trump is around to keep the flame kindled on racism because they know it's dying out on a popular level. Sanders is the flicker of hope à la Ron Paul they give us every few cycles, and Clinton represents business as usual.

Does anyone really think that the keys to our country would be given to someone that may only be around for four years? Anything they really want to implement is planned years in advance and done regardless who is in office.

How is Trump going to "keep the flame kindled on racism" if he has never said anything remotely racist? I don't understand where all this "TRUMP IS WAICIST" nonsense is coming from when no one can actually give me any quotes from Trump that prove racism.

The only racist things I've ever seen during this election is Bernie voters complaining that blacks are "too uneducated to realize Bernie is best for them." That's their only response to the fact that minority voters prefer Clinton.

He said Mexicans are rapists and murderers and proposed a immigration ban on Muslims. Just because it's not black or white don't mean race isn't involved. His "supporters," if thats what you want to call the people paid to attend his rallies, are portrayed as this angry racist remnant that feels disenfranchised... Now I say portrayed because thats exactly what it is. We don't know if theres an actual faction of real citizens that feel this way, but the media pushing the concept inevitably influenced the TV watchers to either relate or debate.

To me it was overwhelmingly obvious that popular support the past two elections has been behind disestablishment candidates, Ron Paul, Sanders, (interestingly enough, only running in the twilight of their careers) and any numbers the media shows you are just that... As good as fabrications, designed to give credibility to a fixed system. Its one big production designed to keep a finger on the pulse of the average man, and give an illusion of choice and a share in the guilt associated with hazardous foreign and domestic policy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 27, 2016, 07:59:15 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431858/donald-trump-2016-campaign-must-be-stopped
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 08:31:22 PM
He said Mexicans are rapists and murderers and proposed a immigration ban on Muslims.

Mexican is a nationality; Muslim is a religious preference. Neither of those things are races.

Just because it's not black or white don't mean race isn't involved. His "supporters," if thats what you want to call the people paid to attend his rallies, are portrayed as this angry racist remnant that feels disenfranchised... Now I say portrayed because thats exactly what it is. We don't know if theres an actual faction of real citizens that feel this way, but the media pushing the concept inevitably influenced the TV watchers to either relate or debate.

Sounds more like you can't come up with a reasonable criticism so you just figure "racism" will suffice. Trump has the best economic, foreign, and social policies out of all candidates currently running.

To me it was overwhelmingly obvious that popular support the past two elections has been behind disestablishment candidates, Ron Paul, Sanders, (interestingly enough, only running in the twilight of their careers) and any numbers the media shows you are just that... As good as fabrications, designed to give credibility to a fixed system. Its one big production designed to keep a finger on the pulse of the average man, and give an illusion of choice and a share in the guilt associated with hazardous foreign and domestic policy.

Guess you better give up now, then. You can't change anything about the world, ever, the masterminds are infinitely more powerful and more intelligent than you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 09:18:10 PM
My criticism definitely isn't towards trump specifically, but youre playing semantics when you say mexico is a country and muslim is a religious preference. How exactly do you single out those people in a broad sense if not by race? Do you think he meant the gringos from mexica are the rapist? Or do you think you can spot a muslim in a crowd if he isnt wearing a turban or kaffiyeh?

I dont want to be the bearer of bad news but it is the entire system that is broken, trying to use this system to enact positive change is futile.

By "system" I mean the plain as day bribery that takes place through the vehicle of lobbying wherein corportate interests at the cost of the greater good are prioritized. It's obvious to everyone with any moderate level of mental ability that global corporations write the laws and have engineered a modern day form of slavery in the guise of capitolism. So no, I will not be voting.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 09:25:46 PM
How exactly do you single out those people in a broad sense if not by race?

Mexicans are from Mexico and Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet that could speak the word of god. I don't see how either of those things are related to a race. It sounds to me like you're the racist here, bucko.


I dont want to be the bearer of bad news but it is the entire system that is broken, trying to use this system to enact positive change is futile.

By "system" I mean the plain as day bribery that takes place through the vehicle of lobbying wherein corportate interests at the cost of the greater good are prioritized. It's obvious to everyone with any moderate level of mental ability that global corporations write the laws and have engineered a modern day form of slavery in the guise of capitolism. So no, I will not be voting.

Literal defeatism.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 10:14:43 PM
How exactly do you single out those people in a broad sense if not by race?

Mexicans are from Mexico and Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet that could speak the word of god. I don't see how either of those things are related to a race. It sounds to me like you're the racist here, bucko.


I dont want to be the bearer of bad news but it is the entire system that is broken, trying to use this system to enact positive change is futile.

By "system" I mean the plain as day bribery that takes place through the vehicle of lobbying wherein corportate interests at the cost of the greater good are prioritized. It's obvious to everyone with any moderate level of mental ability that global corporations write the laws and have engineered a modern day form of slavery in the guise of capitolism. So no, I will not be voting.

Literal defeatism.

Textbook apologetics.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 10:47:16 PM
UNSTUMPABLE!

Who's next? The Trump train has no brakes!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 28, 2016, 09:39:41 AM
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/alan/160202
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 28, 2016, 04:15:41 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTzFpYJWUAAHLbp.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 28, 2016, 07:15:11 PM
Right.

You still haven't been able to figure out which faction Trump actually works for.

Let me help you.

Why would David Duke lavish such praise on Trump, ahead of the super tuesday primaries?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 28, 2016, 07:44:54 PM
(http://imgur.com/HphTud7.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/J9kjYjA.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on February 28, 2016, 09:27:43 PM
Reported for Healthy Earth alt.

The Trump train stops at the general election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 28, 2016, 09:49:37 PM
Romney is winning by a landslide.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 29, 2016, 11:47:00 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/divisions-within-gop-over-trumps-candidacy-are-growing/2016/02/28/97b16010-de3a-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_gopcivilwar810p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


Basically, the GOP is on the brink of civil war.
Half of them hate Trump.
The other Half just want to beat Hillary, no matter the cost.

And the Vice Chairman of the DNC just resigned to support Bernie Sanders.  Which means the DNC is backing Hillary and demands everyone else does to.

This is politics in America: Winning is what matters.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 29, 2016, 03:58:56 PM
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/deace-the-importance-of-home-state-victories
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 29, 2016, 04:45:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 29, 2016, 05:43:52 PM
Texas held early voting from February 16-26 at various early voting locations.

Here is the polling done by Monmouth University on these early votes in Texas:

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/fd1752af-cc7a-4b4c-9125-1d26f351cc4a.pdf

Texas allows early voting and 18% of those polled report having already cast their vote. Nearly half (44%) of these early voters checked Cruz’s name on their ballots.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 29, 2016, 10:15:52 PM
Bernie Sanders is on Reddit literally begging his supporters for more money to fund his already dead chance of being POTUS:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/48bqz6/reddit_you_have_supported_me_since_this_campaign/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 29, 2016, 11:10:30 PM
Bernie Sanders is on Reddit literally begging his supporters for more money to fund his already dead chance of being POTUS:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/48bqz6/reddit_you_have_supported_me_since_this_campaign/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/48bqz6/reddit_you_have_supported_me_since_this_campaign/)

Eh.  At least his PR guy knows where to go.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 06:34:25 AM
http://forward.com/opinion/334488/donald-trump-is-playing-mr-neutral-on-everything-from-israel-to-the-klan-an/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 07:35:55 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/24/ted-cruz-campaign-look-to-texas/

500,000 votes have already been cast in Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’s home state of Texas, and one million will be cast by Friday (one million early votes would represent 60 percent of the total in Texas).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 12:09:10 PM
With Cruz you lose.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 12:18:41 PM
So far, the only certainty is this: Trump will lose big in a general election (running against either Clinton - who will unleash hellfire on Trump, making the primaries look like a knitting circle, or Sanders - if Hillary is indicted).

Again, we have to go back to the question I posed a long time ago:

Why would the GOP put up with Trump's candidacy from the very start?

If Cruz wins big in Texas, the number of candidates should narrow down to at most three.


Again, think: why would David Duke endorse Trump NOW, right before the crucial super tuesday primaries?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2016, 12:22:09 PM
So far, the only certainty is this: Trump will lose big in a general election (running against either Clinton - who will unleash hellfire on Trump, making the primaries look like a knitting circle, or Sanders - if Hillary is indicted).

Again, we have to go back to the question I posed a long time ago:

Why would the GOP put up with Trump's candidacy from the very start?

If Cruz wins big in Texas, the number of candidates should narrow down to at most three.


Again, think: why would David Duke endorse Trump NOW, right before the crucial super tuesday primaries?


Actually its "Why would it be reported now."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 12:27:32 PM
The GOP needs at least 40% of the Hispanic vote to win the general election.

How are they going to achieve that with Trump? They cannot, as they knew it from the very start.

With either Cruz or Rubio, things change for the better: both can win against either Clinton or Sanders.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 01:35:36 PM
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2016, 04:04:57 PM
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)

The worst part of this all is Kasich is the only one out of the whole lot I would ever vote for... and he seems to get shrugged off eventhough a lot of what he says has merit and makes sense, and he is a proven as a successful head of an executive branch.

I would be baffled if I actually thought for a second this shit wasn't rigged beyond belief, and Kasich is in on it just as much.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 01, 2016, 04:30:03 PM
You don't want America to be great again?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2016, 04:38:23 PM
You don't want America to be great again?

Do any globalists actually want America to be great again? The New World Order they been throwing in our faces for the past 40 years makes us assume the bent over position as just another vassal state.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 05:56:12 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2016, 06:15:03 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 06:25:15 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Most NWO nutballs want Cruz because he is "God's chosen one." See Levee for details on that.

All of this KKK nonsense about Trump is no better than when republitards kept saying Obama supports the Black Panthers.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2016, 06:32:58 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

You can say that, but he also owns many companies that operate all around the world. He is just saying shit that he thinks will resonate with his target audience right now. Nullifying Nafta is not something a president could ever accomplish on his own. It would take 10 years of study to even understand the impact it could have. Even if it somehow happened, it wouldn't simply make America "great again."

Serious question though, are you trolling or an actual Trump supporter? I haven't met a supporter in real life yet.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 06:39:06 PM
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)

"You know what I'm really happy about, because we've saying it for a long time? Forty-six percent with the Hispanics! Forty-six percent! Number one with Hispanics!," the real estate mogul said.


But Trump's claim runs counter to ALL polling of Hispanics nationwide.

A new survey from The Washington Post and Univision finds 8 in 10 Latinos view Trump unfavorably, and 7 in 10 view him very unfavorably, more than any other candidate.


Let us remember also:

1. The Nevada GOP caucuses were closed to people not already registered as Republicans - that means Trump won the subset of Latino voters who were already Republicans. What's more, according to the entrance polls, just 8% of the voters taking part in the GOP caucuses said they were Latinos.

2. The full sample size of voters captured by the polls was 1,573. That means Trump's claim that he is "No. 1 with Hispanics" is based on about 125 registered Republicans.


In order to fully understand why David Duke endorsed Trump, one must go back in time some 150 years: who actually founded the KKK? A challenge for the other readers/participants in the discussion to come up with the correct answer.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 06:45:30 PM
You can say that, but he also owns many companies that operate all around the world. He is just saying shit that he thinks will resonate with his target audience right now. Nullifying Nafta is not something a president could ever accomplish on his own. It would take 10 years of study to even understand the impact it could have. Even if it somehow happened, it wouldn't simply make America "great again."

Serious question though, are you trolling or an actual Trump supporter? I haven't met a supporter in real life yet.

I am literally voting for Trump.

In any case, yes, he might be lying, but if that's your concern then why support any candidate at all? If one is lying, well you might as well assume they all are. I'm fairly certain that's what you already do, since you've made it clear you have a very defeatist attitude when it comes to politics.

If I'm going to vote for a liar, I'm going to at least vote for an entertaining one.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2016, 06:48:10 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Oh come on.  He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump.  Why split hairs?  David Duke wants to make America great again!

And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke.  Duke's people are his bread and butter after all.  Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense.  He used his name.  What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 08:37:07 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Oh come on.  He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump.  Why split hairs?  David Duke wants to make America great again!

And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke.  Duke's people are his bread and butter after all.  Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense.  He used his name.  What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?

Ah, yes, there it is, the Trump is racist bandwagon. This really adds to the discussion.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2016, 08:47:22 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Oh come on.  He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump.  Why split hairs?  David Duke wants to make America great again!

And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke.  Duke's people are his bread and butter after all.  Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense.  He used his name.  What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?

Ah, yes, there it is, the Trump is racist bandwagon. This really adds to the discussion.

Weird that you make such an assumption.  It is never stated or even implied in that post.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 01, 2016, 09:20:12 PM
Trump may not be racist, but a good chunk of his fans are, and there's no doubt he deliberately panders to them.  He doesn't want to send them the message that he's not secretly on their side, so naturally he's reluctant to denounce any of them.  He couldn't even bring himself to wholeheartedly condemn the nuts in Boston who beat up a homeless man in his name.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 09:22:13 PM
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2016, 10:05:33 PM
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.

The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.

The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.

Not that the latter surprises me.  You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 10:12:37 PM
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.

The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.

The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.

Not that the latter surprises me.  You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.

People like Donald Trump are winning because his opponents don't know how to argue policy anymore. They're all like you and Saddam. Politicians and the media are so accustomed to making things go away by shouting "racism" that they have forgotten how to tackle policies head-on.

Feel free to argue policy here, though, since you can talk about racism to your heart's content but it won't convince anyone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 01, 2016, 10:41:08 PM
Why do people hate racism and racists so much? I find it extremely discriminating.

Also, to stay on topic. Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 02, 2016, 01:11:07 AM
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.

The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.

The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.

Not that the latter surprises me.  You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.

People like Donald Trump are winning because his opponents don't know how to argue policy anymore. They're all like you and Saddam. Politicians and the media are so accustomed to making things go away by shouting "racism" that they have forgotten how to tackle policies head-on.

Feel free to argue policy here, though, since you can talk about racism to your heart's content but it won't convince anyone.

Trump is literally winning for the exact same reason he didn't want to denounce David Duke: he is appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Period.

After all, you yourself said that you're voting for him because he's entertaining.  Oh, but I'm sure his (likely impossible to implement, as you yourself seem willing to concede) policies are important to you too.

If I'm going to vote for a liar, I'm going to at least vote for an entertaining one.

That this kind of thing is what matters to people in a presidential candidate is disturbing (to say the least), but after having been through eight years of Dubya, not entirely surprising.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 03:03:51 AM
Trump is literally winning for the exact same reason he didn't want to denounce David Duke: he is appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Period.

After all, you yourself said that you're voting for him because he's entertaining.  Oh, but I'm sure his (likely impossible to implement, as you yourself seem willing to concede) policies are important to you too.

If I'm going to vote for a liar, I'm going to at least vote for an entertaining one.

That this kind of thing is what matters to people in a presidential candidate is disturbing (to say the least), but after having been through eight years of Dubya, not entirely surprising.

It's pretty clear at this point that neither of us are willing to discuss the policies at hand because both of us think the other is a dumbass.
Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: junker on March 02, 2016, 04:07:22 AM
Unless Trump murders a half-black, half-Asian Jewish Muslim LGBTQ toddler with Asperger's, the Republican nomination is sewn up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2016, 05:11:16 AM
Unless Trump murders a half-black, half-Asian Jewish Muslim LGBTQ toddler with Asperger's, the Republican nomination is sewn up.

And even then...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 02, 2016, 05:49:47 AM
Unless Trump murders a half-black, half-Asian Jewish Muslim LGBTQ toddler with Asperger's, the Republican nomination is sewn up.

And even then...

Really it could only make him more popular with his fanbase.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 06:33:15 AM
Without David Duke's support, Trump's leads in the southern states he did win would have been much smaller (GA, TN, AL).

By the time the Clintons get done with Trump, 9 out of 10 Hispanics will not vote for him (not to mention the African-American vote).

As I have said from the very start, contrary to each and every other opinion posted here, Trump's role/mission is to prepare the way for someone else.

Not only would Trump lose to either Clinton or Sanders, but the elections for the Senate and the House will turn into a nightmare for the GOP.

Trump is history for the Republican party.


From now on, Trump is going to have to deal with the Trump university scam, the tax returns issue, the New York Times tapes, the KKK comments: it is all over.

How is any delegate at the Cleveland convention going to vote for Trump, once his tax returns are out in the open?


Cruz won his home state big (exactly as I have said from the beginning), a thing that neither Rubio nor Kasich would be able to do.

No matter how much DC dislikes him, Cruz can win against either Clinton or Sanders, he can unify the GOP so that they will win handily in the Senate and the House.

Rubio might have a chance against Clinton, but he does not have the charisma needed to bring the necessary results for the GOP in either the Senate or the House races.


The ultimate Democratic insiders know it too.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/11/clinton-ally-david-brock-cruz-will-end-nominee/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/podesta-cruz-is-likely-gop-nominee-216713


For those who know, who really understand politics, these two statements are very important as to what is going on the GOP side of the election:

Tonight Iowa has proclaimed to the world: morning is coming. (T. Cruz)

Donald is not going to make America great, he's going to make America orange. (M. Rubio)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 07:04:39 AM
Quote from: sandokhan
Cruz won his home state big (exactly as I have said from the beginning), a thing that neither Rubio nor Kasich would be able to do.


You said


Quote
On March 1, whichever of the candidates is from a home state, will win big overall on that day.


As of March 1, that was Ted Cruz.  He did not win big overall.  He won 2 states. He lost big, over all.


You very strongly implied that Ted Cruz would win the south because he devoted significant resources to it.  He did not.

So who is Trump paving the way for?  Because it isn't a GOP candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 07:16:56 AM
The two quotes from my previous message can be understood even better, if an answer can be provided to the question/challenge I posed earlier:

Who founded the KKK?

Remember, if you can answer this question, you will be able to understand everything re: American politics.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 09:34:53 AM
The two quotes from my previous message can be understood even better, if an answer can be provided to the question/challenge I posed earlier:

Who founded the KKK?

Remember, if you can answer this question, you will be able to understand everything re: American politics.
No.  No it doesn't.
Your quotes are quite clear: you indicated Ted Cruz would win big.  He did not.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 10:18:14 AM
I have not yet finished reading this but so far its interesting:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 10:20:19 AM
Did Cruz do what he was supposed to do, attack Trump directly and strongly on the issues which would have derailed any other candidate? He did not.

Yet, with doing practically nothing at all, he won three states (Alaska included).

Had he reminded the voters on the Trump university scam, the tax returns issue, he would have won in Arkansas, and perhaps in Georgia too.

I was right about everything except the extent of Cruz's win on super tuesday; yet, he refrained from attacking Trump, which would have done the job.


Now, can anybody answer this question: who founded the KKK?

Remember, you have to go back to at least 1830 to understand the whole issue.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 10:24:03 AM
Did Cruz do what he was supposed to do, attack Trump directly and strongly on the issues which would have derailed any other candidate? He did not.

Yet, with doing practically nothing at all, he won three states (Alaska included).

Had he reminded the voters on the Trump university scam, the tax returns issue, he would have won in Arkansas, and perhaps in Georgia too.

I was right about everything except the extent of Cruz's win on super tuesday; yet, he refrained from attacking Trump, which would have done the job.


Now, can anybody answer this question: who founded the KKK?

Remember, you have to go back to at least 1830 to understand the whole issue.


Attacking Trump would have no effect.


Also: 1830?!
The KKK didn't exist then.


Also, you tell us the answer because the answer I google will most likely be wrong to you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 10:32:15 AM
The KKK was founded by the Knights of the Golden Circle, one of the most mysterious secret societies of the United States.

Now, who founded the KGC?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 11:09:41 AM
The KKK was founded by the Knights of the Golden Circle, one of the most mysterious secret societies of the United States.

Now, who founded the KGC?
I was going to list 4 names so it's a good thing I let you answer your own question with your own answer.

And how could I know if it's the most secret society in the US?  It doesn't have a wiki page if it's so secretive.


Anyway:
You were wrong, Trump is going to win.  He'll probably win the presidency.
Then you'll be fucked and I'll be over here between laughing and cowering.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 12:11:23 PM
Cruz couldn't even win more than 50% of his home state. His campaign is toast.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 12:12:55 PM
Cruz couldn't even win more than 50% of his home state. His campaign is toast.

Sssoooo... he didn't win big in his home state?  (Sorry, haven't seen the full tallies)

Welp, Sandokhan was very wrong indeed.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 01:13:27 PM
http://conservativeangle.com/revealed-secret-recording-of-donald-trump-will-derail-entire-campaign/

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) urged Republican challenger Donald Trump to allow the New York Times to release a “secret tape” of Trump allegedly explaining the flexibility of his immigration plans.

According to a report published on Monday, the New York Times editorial board recorded an off-the-record meeting it had with Trump in January where he portrayed his immigration proposals as more flexible than previously stated.

“I call on Donald: Ask the New York Times to release the tape and do so today before the Super Tuesday primary,” he said before a campaign rally in San Antonio. “There are one of two instances. It is either false, and if Donald didn’t say that to the New York Times than he deserves to have this cleared up and releasing the tape can clear it up. The alternative is that it is true.”

“That tape can clear it up and the voters deserve to know if he says something different when he is talking to the New York Times than when he is talking to the voters and they deserve to know before Super Tuesday,” he said.


Had the tapes been available to the public before super tuesday, Trump would have lost in most of the southern states; also, Cruz's current lead in Texas, 44%, would have increased to over 50%.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271237-romney-nyt-transcript-could-be-another-trump-bombshell


lorddave...where did you attend school? Obviously you don't know d*ck about history, the four names you found were not the right ones.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 01:31:28 PM
http://conservativeangle.com/revealed-secret-recording-of-donald-trump-will-derail-entire-campaign/ (http://conservativeangle.com/revealed-secret-recording-of-donald-trump-will-derail-entire-campaign/)

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) urged Republican challenger Donald Trump to allow the New York Times to release a “secret tape” of Trump allegedly explaining the flexibility of his immigration plans.

According to a report published on Monday, the New York Times editorial board recorded an off-the-record meeting it had with Trump in January where he portrayed his immigration proposals as more flexible than previously stated.

“I call on Donald: Ask the New York Times to release the tape and do so today before the Super Tuesday primary,” he said before a campaign rally in San Antonio. “There are one of two instances. It is either false, and if Donald didn’t say that to the New York Times than he deserves to have this cleared up and releasing the tape can clear it up. The alternative is that it is true.”

“That tape can clear it up and the voters deserve to know if he says something different when he is talking to the New York Times than when he is talking to the voters and they deserve to know before Super Tuesday,” he said.


Had the tapes been available to the public before super tuesday, Trump would have lost in most of the southern states; also, Cruz's current lead in Texas, 44%, would have increased to over 50%.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271237-romney-nyt-transcript-could-be-another-trump-bombshell (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271237-romney-nyt-transcript-could-be-another-trump-bombshell)
You seem to know alot about what would have happened yet not about what will.



Quote
lorddave...where did you attend school? Obviously you don't know d*ck about history, the four names you found were not the right ones.

And you know this... How?  I never posted them. 
Also, it was 6.  I didn't scroll right.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 01:42:10 PM
I stand corrected.
The mysterious secret society KGC does have a wiki page.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 03:06:38 PM
Hey Dave, could you do me a favor and stop baiting Levee. He is quite literally insane and is incapable of adding any worthwhile content to the thread. I'd prefer someone like Roundy chime back in. I know him and Saddam are capable of policy discussion. They just don't want to discuss it.

Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 03:15:01 PM
Hey Dave, could you do me a favor and stop baiting Levee. He is quite literally insane and is incapable of adding any worthwhile content to the thread. I'd prefer someone like Roundy chime back in. I know him and Saddam are capable of policy discussion. They just don't want to discuss it.

Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.


Alright.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2016, 03:56:33 PM
Hey Dave, could you do me a favor and stop baiting Levee. He is quite literally insane and is incapable of adding any worthwhile content to the thread. I'd prefer someone like Roundy chime back in. I know him and Saddam are capable of policy discussion. They just don't want to discuss it.

Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.

Do you believe this growth to translate to a stronger middle class? Or is Trump going to be more worried about the 1% which he obviously can relate to a lot more than an average American Citizen.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 02, 2016, 04:13:33 PM
Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.

which firms?

also, what do you find appealing about trump's china policy?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 04:38:50 PM
Do you believe this growth to translate to a stronger middle class? Or is Trump going to be more worried about the 1% which he obviously can relate to a lot more than an average American Citizen.

I'm more interested in how well my portfolio performs.

which firms?

also, what do you find appealing about trump's china policy?

Taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

That's the only major one from the top of my head.

As far as his China policy goes, I believe it will raise product costs and make it obvious how depressed China has made national wages. China and other parts of Asia use borderline slave labor to produce low quality, low cost products. I think having a nationalist president who will hamper trade agreements will be ultimately beneficial. Things like NAFTA have been a disaster, even Bill Clinton admits NAFTA was a total mistake.

Of course we also have to remember Obama said the same things during his candidacy and I haven't seen a whole lot of fixing going on. Congress probably still loves the trade deal (or more specifically, that sweet sweet corporate funding).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2016, 04:44:48 PM
I'm more interested in how well my portfolio performs.

Which is part of the issue at large here. The poorer the rest of America is the more your inevitably going to be taxed to make up for it. Trump can talk all the shit he wants, if the SNAP program (aka foodstamps) went away we'd have rioting on our hands... I say this because I would be right there looting and rioting myself. I have a household of 6 people and I work 40 hours a week, and my girlfriend does to, and we wouldn't be able to barely make it the way we do without that particular program.

Would I prefer to make a decent wage, pay less of my income on skyrocketing energy prices and housing costs, and not have to use a program that basically subsidizes poverty? You betcha, but that's not the reality of America right now, and as long as there are those at the top sucking all the money towards themselves it will never be any better than this.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 05:36:41 PM
Well in that case you can vote for whichever candidate is going to do that.

I would like to addendum my prediction on Trump. I predict he will win the nomination and the general election and IN ADDITION I predict his pick for VP will be John Kasich.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 02, 2016, 06:13:55 PM
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)

Where in this image does it show that Hispanic's like Trump better than the alternatives?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 06:40:10 PM
Trump's speech from last night (super Tuesday)

https://youtu.be/4WCUtqw4rAs




Where in this image does it show that Hispanic's like Trump better than the alternatives?

Ayy lmao good meme friend haha
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 06:55:56 PM
Well in that case you can vote for whichever candidate is going to do that.

I would like to addendum my prediction on Trump. I predict he will win the nomination and the general election and IN ADDITION I predict his pick for VP will be John Kasich.

Considering Chris Christie is standing behind him in that speech below, I'm gonna bet it's Chris.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 07:29:53 PM
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 08:11:27 PM
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.
You think Trump cares about that? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on March 02, 2016, 08:30:28 PM
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.
You think Trump cares about that?
I'm sure his campaign staff does.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 08:51:09 PM
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.
You think Trump cares about that?

Yes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 02, 2016, 08:54:35 PM
https://youtu.be/4WCUtqw4rAs

Does anyone else get a Brutus vibe from Christie in that still?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 02, 2016, 09:42:03 PM
Taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

that doesn't say that his "economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates."  it does say that trump's plan would increase GDP by 11.5%, but that comes at the cost of an additional 10 trillion dollars in debt over the next ten years: "Overall, the plan would reduce federal revenue on a static basis by $11.98 trillion over the next ten years...However, if we account for the economic growth that the plan would produce, the plan would end up lowering revenue by $10.14 trillion over the next decade. The larger economy would increase wages, which would narrow the revenue lost through the individual income tax by about $666 billion and increase payroll tax revenues by $839 billion, with the remainder of the recouped revenue coming from other taxes."

the return on the increase in growth isn't as large as the loss of revenue.  as i understand it, debt isn't bad per se, but doubling our debt for 12% GDP growth is a poor bargain.

the tax foundation's own alan cole penned a piece titled Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Will Not Be Revenue-Neutral Under Any Circumstances (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/donald-trump-s-tax-plan-will-not-be-revenue-neutral-under-any-circumstances), in which he writes, "As you can imagine, then, I was puzzled by this statement in Mr. Trump’s piece: “With moderate growth, this plan will be revenue-neutral.”  I do not believe this to be true under any scenario remotely resembling Mr. Trump’s plan...Tax cuts can do a great deal of good; each of the provisions I outlined above could help a lot of people lead better lives. However, the reductions in federal revenue need to be acknowledged, and likely mitigated through substantial cuts in spending, in order to make this plan feasible."

i don't think trump can get this proposal though congress, i don't think he can get the subsequent budget cuts he would need to make it worthwhile, and i wouldn't want trump to be in charge of that process anyway.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 10:41:56 PM
I wasn't making the argument that Trump's plan is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better than the alternatives. Debt is important, but keep in mind that the Tax Foundation assumes that spending remains the same. You even mentioned Alan Cole's comments yourself. A lot of programs are going to be cut in the future; we quite simply can't maintain current federal spending.


Also, this:
(http://imgur.com/WFW0324.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 03, 2016, 03:10:42 AM
I wasn't making the argument that Trump's plan is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better than the alternatives. Debt is important, but keep in mind that the Tax Foundation assumes that spending remains the same. You even mentioned Alan Cole's comments yourself. A lot of programs are going to be cut in the future; we quite simply can't maintain current federal spending.

i think cole's remark gets right to the heart of what i think is such a major flaw in trump's tax plan that he functionally has no tax plan at all.  cole and his cohorts indicate that trump's tax cuts comes at the cost of a $10 trillion revenue shortfall for the fed that can only be mitigated by spending cuts.  it's pretty unfathomable that congress would ever approve a tax plan that doubles our national debt in ten years, and it's even more unfathomable that congress would approve any budget that cuts spending by around 25%.  we spend almost $4 trillion annually, and we'd have to permanently reduce that figure by $1 trillion annually to make it revenue neutral.  even if it were conceivably possible (i really don't think it is), it would be a massive political battle for trump, even within his own party.

i'm also genuinely puzzled by the conservative support for such proposals.  not trying to be snide, but you say yourself that we can't maintain current federal spending, and i assume that like most fiscal conservatives you believe that it's bad for national debt.  does it not trouble you that his tax proposal so wildly increases our debt without really a word said on how to pay for it?  isn't that at least a little irresponsible?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 03, 2016, 05:57:14 AM
I wasn't making the argument that Trump's plan is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better than the alternatives. Debt is important, but keep in mind that the Tax Foundation assumes that spending remains the same. You even mentioned Alan Cole's comments yourself. A lot of programs are going to be cut in the future; we quite simply can't maintain current federal spending.

i think cole's remark gets right to the heart of what i think is such a major flaw in trump's tax plan that he functionally has no tax plan at all.  cole and his cohorts indicate that trump's tax cuts comes at the cost of a $10 trillion revenue shortfall for the fed that can only be mitigated by spending cuts.  it's pretty unfathomable that congress would ever approve a tax plan that doubles our national debt in ten years, and it's even more unfathomable that congress would approve any budget that cuts spending by around 25%.  we spend almost $4 trillion annually, and we'd have to permanently reduce that figure by $1 trillion annually to make it revenue neutral.  even if it were conceivably possible (i really don't think it is), it would be a massive political battle for trump, even within his own party.

i'm also genuinely puzzled by the conservative support for such proposals.  not trying to be snide, but you say yourself that we can't maintain current federal spending, and i assume that like most fiscal conservatives you believe that it's bad for national debt.  does it not trouble you that his tax proposal so wildly increases our debt without really a word said on how to pay for it?  isn't that at least a little irresponsible?

He'll just fire $1 Trillion worth of staff.  Its not hard.

Heck, if he puts medicare funding to 0, thats most of it there.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 03, 2016, 06:02:26 AM
Heck, if he puts medicare funding to 0, thats most of it there.

But is that his intent?  The answer seems to fluctuate from season to season.  I'm pretty sure right now it's at "Keep Medicare" but who knows in spring?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 06:42:09 AM
Back in December, I suggested that a Cruz-Carson ticket will easily win the presidency for the GOP.

Now, a Cruz-Rubio ticket looks more likely, although T. Cruz might choose someone else.


Who founded the KGC?

First clue; from one of the most fascinating works ever published on the subject, This One Mad Act by Izola Forrester.

https://awesometalks.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/glimpsing-a-shadow-from-richmond-john-wilkes-booth-and-the-richmond-grays.pdf

(for those who don't know, JWB survived well after the Civil War: http://barnesreview.org/pdf/TBR2008-no3-4-15.pdf )

Second clue; Lord Palmerston's real name was Henry John Temple.


In the Knights of the Golden Circle's view, Abraham Lincoln betrayed the Constitution and trashed its principles.

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-mr-lincolns-war-an-irrepressible-conflict-1440

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lincfasc.html

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/03/the-imaginary-abe-a-reply-to-harry-jaffas-in-re-jack-kemp-v-joe-sobran.html


Now, the two quotes I posted earlier can be understood in their full significance:


Tonight Iowa has proclaimed to the world: morning is coming. (T. Cruz)

Donald is not going to make America great, he's going to make America orange. (M. Rubio)


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 07:12:14 AM
http://tarpley.net/fascist-trump-humiliated-by-17-point-cruz-victory-margin-in-texas-the-great-prize-of-super-tuesday/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 09:03:04 AM
Latest Trump university scam ad (IL, FL, MI):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnCGwdyiIuA&feature=youtu.be&t=16
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 12:41:14 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/mitt-romney-eviscerate-donald-trump-phony-fraud-n530877
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 03, 2016, 01:15:55 PM
Romney is winning by a landslide
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 01:27:00 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-republicans-rally-around-ted-cruz-as-the-trump-alternative/ (the article includes the latest ad against Trump, "Unelectable", by itself it would spell disaster for Trump on any election day)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 03, 2016, 01:48:46 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-republicans-rally-around-ted-cruz-as-the-trump-alternative/ (the article includes the latest ad against Trump, "Unelectable", by itself it would spell disaster for Trump on any election day)
Unlikely.  The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 04, 2016, 12:51:23 AM
i think cole's remark gets right to the heart of what i think is such a major flaw in trump's tax plan that he functionally has no tax plan at all.  cole and his cohorts indicate that trump's tax cuts comes at the cost of a $10 trillion revenue shortfall for the fed that can only be mitigated by spending cuts.  it's pretty unfathomable that congress would ever approve a tax plan that doubles our national debt in ten years, and it's even more unfathomable that congress would approve any budget that cuts spending by around 25%.  we spend almost $4 trillion annually, and we'd have to permanently reduce that figure by $1 trillion annually to make it revenue neutral.  even if it were conceivably possible (i really don't think it is), it would be a massive political battle for trump, even within his own party.

Doubling our national debt in 10 years isn't as bad as it sounds. Our debt has more than doubled since 2008 and no one has batted an eye.

What would your proposed solution be for reducing that debt? Increasing taxes won't work and decreasing them won't work. Therefore, the only possible solution is to cut spending, something you've already pointed out as apparently impossible.

i'm also genuinely puzzled by the conservative support for such proposals.  not trying to be snide, but you say yourself that we can't maintain current federal spending, and i assume that like most fiscal conservatives you believe that it's bad for national debt.  does it not trouble you that his tax proposal so wildly increases our debt without really a word said on how to pay for it?  isn't that at least a little irresponsible?

The fact of the matter is that there is no viable solution to the debt without cutting spending and you've made it clear that is not a possible solution. I'm confused on what exactly you're expecting me to say, here.

Unlikely.  The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.

Which one is the logical candidate, then?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 04, 2016, 02:36:19 AM
correction: i was wrong about the debt numbers.  i thought our total federal debt was at ~$10 trillion, but it's nearly $20 trillion.

Doubling our national debt in 10 years isn't as bad as it sounds. Our debt has more than doubled since 2008 and no one has batted an eye.

What would your proposed solution be for reducing that debt? Increasing taxes won't work and decreasing them won't work. Therefore, the only possible solution is to cut spending, something you've already pointed out as apparently impossible.

The fact of the matter is that there is no viable solution to the debt without cutting spending and you've made it clear that is not a possible solution. I'm confused on what exactly you're expecting me to say, here.

i'm not saying that congress could never ever cut any spending at all.  i'm saying that it's highly improbable that congress will pass this tax policy.  i don't think congress will pass a budget that immediately cuts spending by 25%, and i don't think congress will pass a budget that so drastically increases our debt.  nothing congress has done in my lifetime gives me any faith that either are possible, let alone both.

i agree that cutting spending is a productive way to reduce our debt, but that's not entirely the issue.  as per your source, trump's tax plan would reduce federal revenue by $12 trillion in ten years, but the revenue gained from economic growth over that time is only ~$2 trillion.  i agree that debt isn't intrinsically bad, but this particular plan is a net-cost, not a net-benefit.  it would increase the rate at which our debt grows with respect to gdp (which is currently negative).  if we aim to reduce our debt, then this plan is significantly worse than the status quo.

even if trump could somehow get both his tax cuts and massive budget cuts through congress, then we'd still just be back to even with regard to gdp and spending.  the opportunity-cost of all of that is awful.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 04, 2016, 02:46:05 AM
Trump released his healthcare plan today.

Quote from: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
   
1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2016, 05:44:23 AM
Unlikely.  The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.

Which one is the logical candidate, then?
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite.  The logical supporters are the minority.



Trump released his healthcare plan today.

Quote from: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
   
1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.


I saw this.  From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 04, 2016, 07:11:18 AM
Judge Andrew Napolitano warns "She should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity," adding that "they would not be immunizing him and thereby inducing him to spill his guts unless they wanted to indict someone."


Napolitano argued that the revelation that former Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who set up Clinton’s private email server in 2009, is reportedly being offered immunity means he will likely be called to testify against someone much higher on the “totem pole.”
 
Pagliano will likely be asked how he was able to “migrate a State Department secure system onto her private server.” He then presented this theoretical question: “Mr. Pagliano, did Mrs. Clinton give you her personal Secretary of State password to enable you to do that?”
 
“If he answers, ‘yes,’ we have an indictment for misconduct in office as well as espionage. She should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity,” Napolitano added.
 
The Judge explained that only a federal judge can grant immunity and will only do so if a sitting jury is ready to hear testimony from the “immunized person,” suggesting the investigation is well on its way to a possible indictment.
 
“We also know they are going to seek someone’s indictment, because they would not be immunizing him and thereby inducing him to spill his guts unless they wanted to indict someone,” he said.


Other officials have a different view.


A former State Department inspector general who served in that capacity from 2005 to 2008 said Hillary Clinton will never be indicted for her email server scandal because A, the State Department itself would be implicated and B, she’s being shielded from prosecution by four very powerful Democratic Party women.

Those women, he said, were Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, the head of the criminal division at the department, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and even White House aide Valerie Jarrett.

Krongard said the case would likely fade, but even if those four women took the referral, the most they would pursue would be a plea-bargain for misdemeanor counts, the New York Post reported.


Howard Krongard, in an interview with the New York Post, said Clinton was never actually assigned a state.gov email address, and that in itself shows the department was aware and at least tacitly approving of her private email system.

Krongard also said it was highly unusual for the inspector general of State position to remain unfilled for the entire tenure of Clinton’s term at the department, from 2009 to 2013.

“This is a major gap,” he said. “In fact, it’s without precedent. It’s the longest period any department has gone without an IG.”

One role of an inspector general is to ensure government entities aren’t committing fraud, waste and abuse; another, however, is to make sure government officials aren’t violating communications security provisions.

“It’s clear she did not want to be subject to internal investigations,” Krongard said, the New York Post reported.


Trump has hinted that Clinton might be criminally indicted, and it is safe to speculate that he is not pulling this out of nowhere, but rather that he is hearing it first hand from powerful people in the USDOJ and the FBI.


http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/hillary-clintons-false-hopes/


Cruz and Rubio must address now the economic issues in a more direct way, in order to win more voters to their side.

Trump was not able to address any of the accusations that were brought to him, during the Detroit debate; he even refused to release the New York Times tapes to the public.


It is obvious that a civil war is coming to the United States (the catalyst will be a stock market collapse; this time around the Fed will not save Wall Street).

Will this revolution start in the northern states or in the southern states? That is, at the time this civil war breaks out, will the President be a Democrat or a Republican?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2016, 07:58:11 AM
Does being inditd on criminal charges or even found guilty proclude you from being president?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 04, 2016, 09:31:40 AM
Back in the summer of 2015, Trump had plenty of advantages over Hillary (Clinton's support for the Iraq war, charges of mysogyny that could not be brought against Trump [not by Hillary], Clinton's sudden changes of position).

But now, 8 out of 10 Hispanics view Trump unfavorably; the KKK comments will bring most of the Black vote over to the Democratic side; and Trump has lost most of the support of the Catholic vote (without which no Republican can get into the White House).

Nor can he portray himself any longer as a successful business man who will bring prosperity and abundance to the country: now we have the Trump university scam and the looming tax returns issue.

If the New York Times tapes are made public, it is all over for Trump.


The following excerpt is from Current Affairs (Nathan Robinson):

Trump's various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it.

Trump can't clown around nearly as much at a debate with Sanders, for the simple reason that Sanders is dead set on keeping every conversation about the plight of America’s poor under the present economic system. If Trump tells jokes and goofs off here, he looks as if he’s belittling poor people, not a magnificent idea for an Ivy League trust fund billionaire running against a working class public servant and veteran of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, Trump will be forced to do what Hillary Clinton has been forced to do during the primary, namely to make himself sound as much like Bernie Sanders as possible. For Trump, having to get serious and take the Trump Show off the air will be devastating to his unique charismatic appeal.
 
Sanders, by contrast, will almost certainly behave as if Trump isn’t even there. He is unlikely to rise to Trump’s bait, because Sanders doesn’t even care to listen to anything that’s not about saving social security or the disappearing middle class. He will almost certainly seem as if he barely knows who Trump is. Sanders’s commercials will be similar to those he has run in the primary, featuring uplifting images of America, aspirational sentiments about what we can be together, and moving testimonies from ordinary Americans.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 04, 2016, 11:02:37 AM
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2016/03/03/debate-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-donald-trump-ted-cruz/

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/03/03/winners-losers-tonight%E2%80%99s-fox-news-gop-debate/

http://www.redstate.com/diary/swansonnation/2016/03/03/cruzs-gamble/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 04, 2016, 12:03:38 PM
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite.  The logical supporters are the minority.

What proves this to be the case?

I saw this.  From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.

It's good to know that not only are you an expert on practical healthcare applications, but that you believe Bernie Sanders invented the idea of imports.

If you want to critique the plan then a number-by-number format would suffice. I don't see how making vague statements about the plan helps the thread.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2016, 12:23:44 PM
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite.  The logical supporters are the minority.

What proves this to be the case?
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.
Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

Then banning Muslims.  This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not. 

The support is largely based on "He will stop them".  See my previous link to the rise of authoritarianism.

Quote
I saw this.  From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.

It's good to know that not only are you an expert on practical healthcare applications, but that you believe Bernie Sanders invented the idea of imports.

If you want to critique the plan then a number-by-number format would suffice. I don't see how making vague statements about the plan helps the thread.
Sorry, I was referring to what I read, not my actual knowledge.  What I read is that some of it is impractical, not that I read it and determined it was impractical.
Here's the article I read.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/03/469019745/trump-health-plan-recycles-gop-chestnuts-and-adds-a-populist-wrinkle
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 04, 2016, 01:54:24 PM
Andrew Napolitano sold his legal opinion to Fox News a long time ago.  I wouldn't take his analysis of any given situation as being indicative of anything other than what his audience wants to hear.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2016, 02:34:18 PM
Obama sees Star Wars.  Trump gets upset.
http://www.cnet.com/news/donald-trump-shames-president-obama-for-watching-star-wars/


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 04, 2016, 09:00:08 PM
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.

I've had the opposite experience. People are so polarized against Trump that they haven't bothered (or outright refuse) to learn about his actual policies. They just parrot "Trump is xenophobic! Trump is racist!" etc. without any real meat to their argument. I've learned the vast majority of people who hate Trump argue from emotion, not logic. No one here could even produce a single racist statement Trump made and the 'xenophobia' claim makes no sense either. Trump has only ever spoken about illegal immigration and has made a point that legal immigration is welcome. It's not xenophobic to filter out who can live in your country.


Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

There's a fence and it's mostly garbage and placed very terribly along the border. Trump has cited the wall the Israeli's built many times. It cost roughly 1.8 million dollars per mile and that's the "8 billion dollar" estimate comes from. When Trump says we'll "make Mexico pay for it" he doesn't literally mean Mexico will write us a check. Mexico receives billions of dollars in foreign aid. They're about to receive 8 billion dollars less.

Walls are generally a psychological barrier and not necessarily a functional one. Simply hearing about Trump being elected will probably deter a lot of would-be illegal aliens, whereas things like sanctuary cities and free education increase their movement.


Then banning Muslims.  This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not.

I doubt he will actually ban Muslims, I do support it, however. Then again, I'd support the complete banning of religion if given the choice, so I'm not really the person to bother on this point.


Sorry, I was referring to what I read, not my actual knowledge.  What I read is that some of it is impractical, not that I read it and determined it was impractical.
Here's the article I read.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/03/469019745/trump-health-plan-recycles-gop-chestnuts-and-adds-a-populist-wrinkle

The plan isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Dionysios on March 04, 2016, 10:05:12 PM
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
>second.

Sanders is not a socialist or radical unless compared to his competition, but he's by far the best option among the candidates.

Noam Chomsky endorsed Sanders and said that he doesn't have much of a chance. In corroboration of that I've since read that the reason Clinton has an advantage over him has nothing to do with the desires of common voters. Over the last two years her team has focused on getting the super delegates in each state to promise her their vote. The super delegates are a sizeable fraction of delegates in every state who are not elected by the voters at all. This fact heavily prejudices the elections in advance and is unsurprisingly omitted by major media because emphasis upon it would make people understand how the elections are a fraud designed to make it appear as if the establishment candidate defeated any challengers fair and square which is a lie.

That being said, Clinton is the lesser of two evils compared to Trump (who would indeed make for better late night TV).

So it's looking like Bill Clinton will get third and fourth terms as U.S. president. Republican presidents are not quite that clever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btJfkPBLULg
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 05, 2016, 01:59:06 AM
The best thing about Bernie Sanders is that he has no idea how to run a campaign. We would be in trouble if he managed to get people to vote for him.

Edit: Ben Carson has officially suspended his campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 05, 2016, 03:04:36 PM
A dedicated lifelong Democratic voter said that voting for the Democratic Party is good for you
That's fantastic
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 05, 2016, 03:56:59 PM
The best thing about Bernie Sanders is that he has no idea how to run a campaign. We would be in trouble if he managed to get people to vote for him.

trump and bernie are basically the same candidate.  "america sucks because of [insert your greatest fears here], and only i can save you with my plan to [insert policy proposal that congress will never, ever pass]."

imo imo tbqh
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 05, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
trump and bernie are basically the same candidate.  "america sucks because of [insert your greatest fears here], and only i can save you with my plan to [insert policy proposal that congress will never, ever pass]."

imo imo tbqh

They do agree with a lot of policies, but Trump is a leader who has had executive power for most of his life. Bernie Sanders is a bum who lived off of government money most of his life. One is HIGH ENERGY, the other one is a mess, just like Jeb. Bernie Sanders is not fit to be POTUS. He doesn't know how to lead people, which is why his campaign is going to shit.

Also, I withdraw my prediction that John Kasich will be the VP.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 05, 2016, 05:09:49 PM
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.
Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

Then banning Muslims.  This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not. 

The support is largely based on "He will stop them".  See my previous link to the rise of authoritarianism.

That doesn't sound very emotional to me.  Did you mean that their support is largely intuitive?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 05, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
Do not underestimate the wonderful vision of socialism; the working class can see how well it functions for the rich, they can also observe that for the past 80 years America has had a mixed economy.

Sanders is the new Jimmy Carter. Should Hillary get indicted, there is no one else left to win the nomination.

As I have described in my last message, Sanders would win against Trump, even though his campaign might not be very well run.

Only a true conservative can run successfully against Sanders, this much all the major figures in the GOP understand.

Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, said Sanders back in 1987.

However, in America, the idea of public ownership of the means of production is a dead issue.

What the current leadership (both parties) is working to achieve is something else: retain private property, but have public control over its use and disposal.


Both Sanders and Trump are being used to create something very dangerous in America: to secure the vote of seemingly independent constituents who are lulled into a false sense of political novelty, only to be terribly disappointed (thus increasing the chances and the conditions necessary for a civil war).






Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 06, 2016, 12:59:15 AM
www.loser.com
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 06, 2016, 08:57:30 PM
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.

I've had the opposite experience. People are so polarized against Trump that they haven't bothered (or outright refuse) to learn about his actual policies. They just parrot "Trump is xenophobic! Trump is racist!" etc. without any real meat to their argument. I've learned the vast majority of people who hate Trump argue from emotion, not logic. No one here could even produce a single racist statement Trump made and the 'xenophobia' claim makes no sense either. Trump has only ever spoken about illegal immigration and has made a point that legal immigration is welcome. It's not xenophobic to filter out who can live in your country.
But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.
But, yes, we do argue from emotion alot.  After all, Donald Trump is a very emotional guy and holds a grudge.  Though his threats of lawsuits don't usually end up happening so that's at least something.

Quote

Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

There's a fence and it's mostly garbage and placed very terribly along the border. Trump has cited the wall the Israeli's built many times. It cost roughly 1.8 million dollars per mile and that's the "8 billion dollar" estimate comes from. When Trump says we'll "make Mexico pay for it" he doesn't literally mean Mexico will write us a check. Mexico receives billions of dollars in foreign aid. They're about to receive 8 billion dollars less.

Walls are generally a psychological barrier and not necessarily a functional one. Simply hearing about Trump being elected will probably deter a lot of would-be illegal aliens, whereas things like sanctuary cities and free education increase their movement.
I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014.  In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent.  Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.

Also, the wall was planned to be 430 miles in length.
The US-Mexico border is closer to 2,000 miles.

Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:

So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 06, 2016, 09:02:32 PM
But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.


I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014.  In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent.  Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.

It was built to prevent illegal Egyptian migrants, not suicide bombings, and it prevented 99% of them. We have to keep in mind, though, that Israelis have a shoot-on-sight policy. Whereas we don't fire on migrants.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/31/israeli-fence-cuts-migration-egypt

Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:

  • A ditch and a pyramid shaped stack of six coils of barbed wire on the eastern side of the structure, barbed wire only on the western side.
  • A path enabling the patrol of IDF forces on both sides of the structure.
  • An intrusion- detection fence, in the center, with sensors to warn of any incursion.
  • Smoothed strip of sand that runs parallel to the fence, to detect footprints.
So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)

Why must it be built during Trump's term in office? Do you expect a fence to suddenly pop out of the ground when he is inaugurated?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 07, 2016, 04:47:44 AM
But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.
Seems rather knee jerk and sterotyping

Quote
I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014.  In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent.  Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.

It was built to prevent illegal Egyptian migrants, not suicide bombings, and it prevented 99% of them. We have to keep in mind, though, that Israelis have a shoot-on-sight policy. Whereas we don't fire on migrants.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/31/israeli-fence-cuts-migration-egypt
Wrong fence.  The one I'm talking about (the super one I assumed Trump meant) was the fence around the west bank, not the southern border.  The southern border fence is not much different from waht we have just along a much much much smaller area.

Also: how do they know no one came over?  If they did and no one noticed, they'd have no clue.


Quote
Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:

  • A ditch and a pyramid shaped stack of six coils of barbed wire on the eastern side of the structure, barbed wire only on the western side.
  • A path enabling the patrol of IDF forces on both sides of the structure.
  • An intrusion- detection fence, in the center, with sensors to warn of any incursion.
  • Smoothed strip of sand that runs parallel to the fence, to detect footprints.
So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)

Why must it be built during Trump's term in office? Do you expect a fence to suddenly pop out of the ground when he is inaugurated?
Do you really expect the next president/congress to approve continued funding otherwise?  Unless it has nearly immediate results or its guarenteed to be built no matter what, once Trump leaves it could be stopped at an instant.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 07, 2016, 01:16:06 PM
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_revenge_of_the_lower_classes_and_the_rise_of_american_fascism_20160302

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 02:45:04 AM
Seems rather knee jerk and sterotyping

How so?

Wrong fence.  The one I'm talking about (the super one I assumed Trump meant) was the fence around the west bank, not the southern border.  The southern border fence is not much different from waht we have just along a much much much smaller area.

(http://i.imgur.com/gx3grhJ.png)

Looks like that one was pretty effective to me, Dave.


Also: how do they know no one came over?  If they did and no one noticed, they'd have no clue.

If you have 30,000 illegal crossings a year turn into about 40, then you might think the statistical error of people who crossed but weren't found becomes pretty irrelevant.

Do you really expect the next president/congress to approve continued funding otherwise?  Unless it has nearly immediate results or its guarenteed to be built no matter what, once Trump leaves it could be stopped at an instant.

Having half a fence would still be preferable to having none. At least Trump tried to give this country its balls back in that case.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 08, 2016, 03:40:18 AM
...he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.

You don't see an issue with a bullshit conspiracy theory that Trump pulled out of his ass to cater to racist morons?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 08, 2016, 03:58:19 AM
...he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.

You don't see an issue with a bullshit conspiracy theory that Trump pulled out of his ass to cater to racist morons?

Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 08, 2016, 04:21:51 AM
Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?

I looked up "kafkabaiting" (or "kafkatrapping"); it appears to be a buzzword used exclusively by conspiracy nuts and sleazy right-wing webshites.  The gist of it is that you accuse someone of something, then use their denials as further evidence of your accusation?  That's certainly not what I'm doing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 08, 2016, 04:24:40 AM
Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?

I looked up "kafkabaiting" (or "kafkatrapping"); it appears to be a buzzword used exclusively by conspiracy nuts and sleazy right-wing webshites.  The gist of it is that you accuse someone of something, then use their denials as further evidence of your accusation?  That's certainly not what I'm doing.

You're doing it again, and implicitly accusing me of being a "conspiracy nut" and "sleazy right-wing". And what if I deny your accusation, are you just going to let it go and admit you were wrong? I don't think so.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.

"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 08, 2016, 04:38:52 PM
http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/how-do-donald-trumps-campaign-proposals-so-far-add-up/

it is "literally impossible" to balance the budget under trump's proposals.  his plan is demonstrably worse than the status quo.
Quote
Roughly speaking, achieving a balanced budget by 2026 would require roughly $8 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years; and that figure would increase to between $19.7 trillion and $23.1 trillion over a decade assuming the enactment of Mr. Trump’s website proposals.5

To achieve this level of savings with spending reductions alone would require huge cuts. For example, cutting the entire budget (other than the VA and immigration enforcement, which are increased in his plans) across-the-board would require a reduction of 39 to 46 percent – a figure that is highly unlikely to be achieved.

Those cuts, however, include cutting Social Security benefits by nearly half – when Mr. Trump has argued multiple times that Social Security benefits should be left alone. Exempting Social Security, cuts would need to total 55 to 65 percent. Also removing Medicare, which Mr. Trump has called for protecting as well (though he has also proposed some small potential savings in the Medicare space), cuts would need to total 75 and 87 percent. And if defense were also exempted, as an area Mr. Trump has committed to strengthening, it becomes literally impossible to balance the budget with only spending cuts.
(http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/app/uploads/2016/02/Trump-Cuts-4.png)

the economy would have to grow twice as quickly as its historic high to pay for these cuts.
Quote
Assuming Tax Foundation’s economic feedback estimates are linear relative to GDP growth after 10 years, it would require 7.7 to 9.0 percent real annual growth to simply pay for the initiatives on Donald Trump’s website, and 10.4 to 11.4 percent real annual growth to balance the budget within a decade. In other words, to balance the budget, growth would have to be roughly 5 times as large as projected, and twice as high as the fastest growth period in the last 60 years (which was between 1959 and 1968).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2016, 04:53:00 PM
I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.

"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.

To continually deny the obvious racist implications of saying muslims should be banned from this country, and mexican immigrants are rapist and murderers, is at best apologetic and at worst wholehearted agreement with such bigoted rhetoric.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 05:39:54 PM
I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.

"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.

To continually deny the obvious racist implications of saying muslims should be banned from this country, and mexican immigrants are rapist and murderers, is at best apologetic and at worst wholehearted agreement with such bigoted rhetoric.

How can someone who never mentions race be racist? It's at best xenophobia, which is really just a globalist buzzword invented to shame people into thinking their country doesn't have its own rights.

No one here other than Garygreen has come up with even one good point against Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2016, 06:15:34 PM
How about this:

Donald Trump is an asshole.

That's basically it. One look and you can tell he is so obviously out of touch with his own horrible smegma, let alone relate with anyone who isn't at least a millionaire. He in no way could ever possibly represent the average american citizen, unless of course the average american citizen is a bunch of out of touch, self-absorbed billionaires that is.

You can debate that all you want, but I know a douche bag when I see one.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 06:41:57 PM
Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.

Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2016, 06:47:46 PM
Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.

Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.

Yeah, I guess a likable, non psychopath is too much to ask for huh lol... can we at least get a likable psychopath???

Patrick Bateman for President 2016!!!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 08, 2016, 07:12:50 PM
As I have said from the very start, Trump is reading a script, is acting out a role, that is all. He couldn't care less about America being great again, or about the wall at the border, or any other issue raised during the campaign; it is an act.

His main role is to prepare the way for someone else.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2016, 07:26:16 PM
As I have said from the very start, Trump is reading a script, is acting out a role, that is all. He couldn't care less about America being great again, or about the wall at the border, or any other issue raised during the campaign; it is an act.

His main role is to prepare the way for someone else.
But who and how?  Even if he drops out the day before the election, its not like Ted Cruz can suddenly be on the ballott.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 08, 2016, 07:43:26 PM
I have carefully explained to all of you here which secret society is behind Trump's campaign, and how it is cooperating with a more powerful organization which has chosen one of its own as the GOP nominee.

Trump is creating a false sense of political novelty, which is being used to channel the votes and the energy to someone else.


Now, he is under a ceaseless barrage of attack ads paid for by super PACs, whose contribution runs in the tens of millions of dollars (ten million dollars being spent just in Florida).

The attacks against Trump are unprecedented in recent political history.

And yet, they bring to the public's knowledge facts which are absolutely true: the university scam, the NY Times tapes, the refusal to release the tax returns, and much more.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 08:18:31 PM
DAMMIT DAVE WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2016, 08:22:55 PM
DAMMIT DAVE WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS

Sorry sorry..
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 09, 2016, 12:47:06 AM
it is "literally impossible" to balance the budget under trump's proposals.  his plan is demonstrably worse than the status quo.

Then hopefully he will change it as necessary.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2016, 06:11:46 AM
it is "literally impossible" to balance the budget under trump's proposals.  his plan is demonstrably worse than the status quo.

Then hopefully he will change it as necessary.
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 09, 2016, 08:38:43 AM
Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.

Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.

As the bullfrog is a warmonger (bomb the shit out of them, shoot em with bullets dipped in pigs blood etc), clearly crazed and by your admission, an ass, WTF, change sides Rushy. You can do it, there is a wonderful green option in Jill Stein, we got to change track sooner or later, the corporate backed ass-holes will lurch from one mess to another salting away their billions while the world goes to shit, hoping that when it all goes tits up they can ride it out in a bunker you won't have an invite to. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 09, 2016, 02:10:37 PM
As the bullfrog is a warmonger (bomb the shit out of them, shoot em with bullets dipped in pigs blood etc), clearly crazed and by your admission, an ass, WTF, change sides Rushy. You can do it, there is a wonderful green option in Jill Stein, we got to change track sooner or later, the corporate backed ass-holes will lurch from one mess to another salting away their billions while the world goes to shit, hoping that when it all goes tits up they can ride it out in a bunker you won't have an invite to.

You seem to be under the impression I think being an ass is an undesirable quality. Trump's personality is amazing. He's the only candidate that I can sit there and listen to his entire speech. Just last night a reporter asked him a question about his mean language and he told the guy to sit back down and he moved on to another press question. Trump is amazing.

If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2016, 03:04:59 PM

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?

Bernie Sanders was a 3-term mayor.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 09, 2016, 03:11:01 PM
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 09, 2016, 03:24:28 PM

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?

Bernie Sanders was a 3-term mayor.

TIL
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2016, 04:02:56 PM

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?

Bernie Sanders was a 3-term mayor.

TIL

(http://i.imgur.com/5ajbeWB.gif?noredirect)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 09, 2016, 04:42:37 PM


"Trump's personality is amazing. You seem to be under the impression I think being an ass is an undesirable quality."

Clearly not Rushy, clearly not!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 09, 2016, 08:29:15 PM
http://therightscoop.com/fox-business-host-marco-rubio-likely-to-drop-out-before-florida-primary/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2016, 08:45:13 PM
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?
No, this is simply that when something happens that he can't control (such as expenses run over or legal issues crop up) Donald Trump, like any smart business man, will jump ship.
Just ask Scotland.



If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
I'm not sure I can. 
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/

And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

But eh.  Whatever.  Point is, he's a business man.  If there's no profit, why keep going?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 09, 2016, 09:26:21 PM
"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.

This is the third time you've very, very liberally (and incorrectly) interpreted a criticism of Trump's attempts to pander to racist voters to mean nothing more than "That's racist/Trump's racist/You're racist."  Within the very same sentence, you turn on pedant-mode and insist that Mexico/Mexican is technically not a race in and of itself and therefore any discussion of race and racism is irrelevant - not the first time you've done that, either.  Setting the apparent hypocrisy of this aside, I'll respond to both claims:

Briefly addressing the latter point first, you're quibbling.  You know perfectly well what's meant when people talk about race and racism in this context.  Yes, technically, nationalities and ethnicities aren't races, but it's very common to colloquially refer to general bigotry and discrimination as racism.  Nobody's trying to trick you, nobody's trying to twist the argument into being about something it's not, they're just using everyday language in a casual sense.  I wouldn't use those terms in an academic paper or anything, but in an informal discussion like this, I really don't think it's unreasonable to just let it slide.

As for the racism charge, I'll drop the loaded phrasing and express my concerns seriously.  Trump's language feels like it's intended to appeal first and foremost to the lowest common denominator, ignorant, prejudiced people who know very little about politics beyond a knee-jerk fear of the unknown.  The way he talks about illegal immigration shows this most vividly.  There are plenty of reasons to want to crack down on illegal immigration, such as the importance of the rule of law, the impact on the economy (a subject that Trump, given his background, should be very qualified to talk about), etc., but Trump's position seems to be based more than anything else on the more sensational threat of the Mexicans being out to get us.  The immigrants are drug smugglers.  They're killers.  They're rapists.  That last one I know because, well, who else could it be that's doing the raping?  Oh, and the Mexican government is behind it all, they're deliberately sending us these people!

And his weird brand of nasty populism doesn't stop there.  There was the time he made up a story (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/) about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey after 9/11, which I would write off as him just mistaking some footage from Middle Eastern countries that were celebrating 9/11, if not for the fact that he doubled down on his claims when it was pointed out to him that both the media and police had no evidence of anything of the sort happening (and contrary to what certain websites have claimed, Trump has not been vindicated on this point, as discussed here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/02/new-information-doesnt-fix-donald-trumps-911-claim/)).  He also championed the birther movement for a few years, and yes, I am absolutely calling the birthers racist to the core.  As I mentioned earlier, he was even hesitant to fully disavow the nuts in Boston who beat up a homeless man in his name, instead just giving a rambling response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/21/trump-says-fans-are-very-passionate-after-hearing-one-of-them-allegedly-assaulted-hispanic-man/) about how passionate and driven his followers are.  And finally, there's his Twitter account, which is full of delightful messages like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/), this (https://twitter.com/GoAngelo/status/617875992594546688), and this (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/635998754546548737).

That's what people are talking about when they mention Trump and racism.  Nobody is accusing Trump of calling for a return to segregated schools, or declaring white people the master race.  And personally, I don't think that he really believes all the garbage he says.  What he is doing, however, is nudging and winking at the bigots out there that make up his base, hinting to them that he shares their concerns about these people, while always leaving himself enough wiggle room to deny any racist intention if called out on it publicly.  But I think any reasonable person can connect the dots and figure out what the subtext is.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 09, 2016, 11:44:42 PM


"Trump's personality is amazing. You seem to be under the impression I think being an ass is an undesirable quality."

Clearly not Rushy, clearly not!

Given that Rushy himself is something of an ass,  does this surprise you?  I have no doubt he looks up to Trump as a paragon of character.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2016, 12:21:11 AM
This is the third time you've very, very liberally (and incorrectly) interpreted a criticism of Trump's attempts to pander to racist voters to mean nothing more than "That's racist/Trump's racist/You're racist."  Within the very same sentence, you turn on pedant-mode and insist that Mexico/Mexican is technically not a race in and of itself and therefore any discussion of race and racism is irrelevant - not the first time you've done that, either.  Setting the apparent hypocrisy of this aside, I'll respond to both claims:

Briefly addressing the latter point first, you're quibbling.  You know perfectly well what's meant when people talk about race and racism in this context.  Yes, technically, nationalities and ethnicities aren't races, but it's very common to colloquially refer to general bigotry and discrimination as racism.  Nobody's trying to trick you, nobody's trying to twist the argument into being about something it's not, they're just using everyday language in a casual sense.  I wouldn't use those terms in an academic paper or anything, but in an informal discussion like this, I really don't think it's unreasonable to just let it slide.

As for the racism charge, I'll drop the loaded phrasing and express my concerns seriously.  Trump's language feels like it's intended to appeal first and foremost to the lowest common denominator, ignorant, prejudiced people who know very little about politics beyond a knee-jerk fear of the unknown.  The way he talks about illegal immigration shows this most vividly.  There are plenty of reasons to want to crack down on illegal immigration, such as the importance of the rule of law, the impact on the economy (a subject that Trump, given his background, should be very qualified to talk about), etc., but Trump's position seems to be based more than anything else on the more sensational threat of the Mexicans being out to get us.  The immigrants are drug smugglers.  They're killers.  They're rapists.  That last one I know because, well, who else could it be that's doing the raping?  Oh, and the Mexican government is behind it all, they're deliberately sending us these people!

And his weird brand of nasty populism doesn't stop there.  There was the time he made up a story (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/) about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey after 9/11, which I would write off as him just mistaking some footage from Middle Eastern countries that were celebrating 9/11, if not for the fact that he doubled down on his claims when it was pointed out to him that both the media and police had no evidence of anything of the sort happening (and contrary to what certain websites have claimed, Trump has not been vindicated on this point, as discussed here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/02/new-information-doesnt-fix-donald-trumps-911-claim/)).  He also championed the birther movement for a few years, and yes, I am absolutely calling the birthers racist to the core.  As I mentioned earlier, he was even hesitant to fully disavow the nuts in Boston who beat up a homeless man in his name, instead just giving a rambling response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/21/trump-says-fans-are-very-passionate-after-hearing-one-of-them-allegedly-assaulted-hispanic-man/) about how passionate and driven his followers are.  And finally, there's his Twitter account, which is full of delightful messages like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/), this (https://twitter.com/GoAngelo/status/617875992594546688), and this (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/635998754546548737).

That's what people are talking about when they mention Trump and racism.  Nobody is accusing Trump of calling for a return to segregated schools, or declaring white people the master race.  And personally, I don't think that he really believes all the garbage he says.  What he is doing, however, is nudging and winking at the bigots out there that make up his base, hinting to them that he shares their concerns about these people, while always leaving himself enough wiggle room to deny any racist intention if called out on it publicly.  But I think any reasonable person can connect the dots and figure out what the subtext is.

Twisting the very words we use into different meanings is a form of offense, Saddam. We see it everyday. We are given words that mean bad things and those bad things should make us feel bad. Racism, bigotry, xenophobia, transphobic, homophobic. Many people here, including even yourself, rule over an institution of shaming people into a certain belief system. It doesn't matter what that belief system is, but what matters is how we as a society arrive to that conclusion. It's no coincidence that the term "phobia" was co-opted into so many words. It means 'fear' and implying that someone is afraid of something implicitly means they are weak. You are afraid of other people. You are afraid of gays. You are afraid of transgenders. You are afraid.

What does this mean to the population as a whole? It means you've created an atmosphere of fear, not belief. The reason Trump does so terrible in closed caucus states is because voters are afraid to say "I'm voting for Trump" inside a huge crowd. The truth is that nothing changed what people believed. The current political parties have failed to tackle actual class and race issues. They failed because they don't want to. They failed because fear is the basic principle they've ensured society succumbs to. What fear results in is 'fight or flight' mode and now that fear has turned into rage. By shaming people into believing something, this nation has created a huge swath of pent up rage. Politicians don't talk about why racism is bad. They don't talk about why it exists in the first place. They don't talk about the roots of problems, they state the problem, and they state the solution, and then you just sort of have to believe that they can arrive at that solution somehow. All of them do this. All of them.

In the end, I'll need you to forgive me, but I'm attracted to that rage. The anger, the hate, the rage that Trump has tapped into is magnificent. What's so interesting about this is people like yourself would like to believe you were in the fight against racism, bigotry, or even xenophobia. You don't know why these things exist because you don't understand them. That's, what I believe, truly scares people when it comes to Trump. He has shown that vast swathes of these people still exist and they are very, very active, and you haven't the slightest goddamn clue how to stop them when the shaming stops working.

With that said, let's move over into the meat of Trump's policies. One thing we can be sure of, what Trump says, and maybe not necessarily what he believes, is pure unadulterated Nationalism. America is going to be made great again, fuck everyone else. That's something I can get behind. We have trade deficits with nearly the entire planet and 'free trade' deals have caused this to be one huge nation of consumerism. The bottom has fallen out of the manufacturing industries and nearly all jobs held by young people today are service jobs that require the lowest common denominator of intelligence. It also happens to be why wages are depressed and why our unemployment is still high. "but muh unemployment rate of 5%" well, oops, I guess it turns out that's because the Feds decided to count people who gave up looking for a job as 'employed'. The unemployment rate is now garbage. The only reasonable economic indicator is now the participation rate, which most people are more than happy to never mention is at 62.9% (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)

We have the highest corporate tax rates of any civilized country in the world. Even Sweden, the gem of Social Democracy, has a lower corporate tax rate than us. This means that corporations flee from the US as fast as they can. The rest of the world gets a pretty good deal, though. Just stick your headquarters in Ireland and all of that sweet sweet American consumerism funnels the ol' dollarydoos right into Irish government. America is quite literally giving economic welfare to everyone except Americans. This, by the way, is where Bernie gets his crazy 'effective corporate tax rate' because he is under the impression he can tax corporations that aren't headquartered in the US; Sanders counts the money given to the Irish as taxes America should have gotten. (http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-corporate-effective-tax-rate-myth-and-fact)

I could go on for a really long time. But ultimately the point is, Saddam, I don't care if you call me or Trump or his supporters racist or xenophobes or whatever you want because you can't tell me why. You think about the morality of a policy, not its actual impact, and so therefore your thoughts on the subject are irrelevant. You live in a 'reality has a liberal bias' world. A feels>reals world. So feel free to move to Canada with the rest of the feels peoples while their economy burns to ashes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 10, 2016, 01:13:22 AM
yeah living in america fuckin sucks i wish i lived someplace that was beating us at the trade game like china or brazil those places are awesome i wish we were great like china

i hate that actual retarded people are taking over our contry
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on March 10, 2016, 01:28:33 AM
How much is Mitt Romney winning by now?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2016, 02:17:40 AM
yeah living in america fuckin sucks i wish i lived someplace that was beating us at the trade game like china or brazil those places are awesome i wish we were great like china

i hate that actual retarded people are taking over our contry

This is a non sequitur. I praised China's trade policies, not their country in general. Their currency manipulation and trade management is amazing for such a large nation.

How much is Mitt Romney winning by now?

Actually he just filed his papers for the RNC nomination and said accepting the nomination from a brokered convention "isn't out of the question." Romney, like Cruz, thinks he is God's chosen one. Grade-A whacko. Also, THIS!

(http://i.imgur.com/cVzPhmb.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 10, 2016, 05:46:12 AM
yeah living in america fuckin sucks i wish i lived someplace that was beating us at the trade game like china or brazil those places are awesome i wish we were great like china

i hate that actual retarded people are taking over our contry

This is a non sequitur. I praised China's trade policies, not their country in general. Their currency manipulation and trade management is amazing for such a large nation.

frustrated hyperbole.  forgive me; i just kinda can't believe we're back to voting for the angriest and most rage-filled ultranationalist idiot we can find.  i feel like history has been down the rage-filled ultranationalist road before a whole bunch of times and maybe let's try something different and less fucking terrifying.

american conservatism has a proud history of intellectualism that's been shit on for half a century, and apparently this is where we are now.  awesome.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 10, 2016, 07:38:18 AM
I don't know what Americans are so terrified of. It's not a dictatorship, presidents can't simply pass anything they want into legislation. However, if you look at Trump's policies that are actually reasonable, they're not that bad:

-anti-TPP
-reducing trade deficits
-bringing back overseas money on a single-time tax
-health care reform
-improved relations with Russia

Meanwhile, Bernie has:

-?????????????????????

Let's be real, if we lived in a world where American presidents could act on all their promises, Bernie would destroy the American economy much faster than Trump would. But thankfully that is not the case, and presidents are little more than representative leaders, so Trump is obviously the much better choice. Can you even imagine Bernie negotiating with Putin? He would get eaten alive.

Of course, if all you want is a safe and sure president, you should vote for Hillary. She's easily the best diplomat with the most experience out of the viable candidates, and she's nothing but a Democratic Party sockpuppet whose policies are dead center on the status quo with no intent to ever change it. But it's pretty obvious American voters are tired of politics being handled in that manner, and who even knows what's going to happen with her indictment?

Basically, this election is a shitfest with no real good options, so people are just directing their pent-up frustrations to the candidate who speaks to them the most. And honestly, I think it speaks pretty highly of American voters that they can see past the deplorable smear campaign perpetrated by the mainstream media against Trump (well, at least some of them can). Regardless of the election results, people are waking up and beginning to distrust the media and see the obvious strings.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2016, 02:16:26 PM
Sanders and Clinton promised a Univision moderator not to deport a single person during their presidency during last night's debate.

Wow, I sure am glad I'm voting for the candidate who will actually enforce my country's laws.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 10, 2016, 04:11:17 PM
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
I'm not sure I can. 
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/

And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

But eh.  Whatever.  Point is, he's a business man.  If there's no profit, why keep going?

What? In what universe does that make sense? Hillary's a mother so she'll bake cookies for America. Sanders is a Yankee so he'll go to war with the South. Trump is a businessman so he will quit if he's not making a profit.

This may shock you Dave, but people are more than their titles. You fire off all these things you're clearly parroting from whatever Facebook feeds you follow, and when asked to back up your assertions your response is, "I'm not sure I can." How about instead of regurgitating whatever you read that aligns with your presuppositions, you state things you can handle.  Lets start with a small one:

Trump is going to make America great again. (You should repeat this often.)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 10, 2016, 05:11:14 PM
Sanders and Clinton promised a Univision moderator not to deport a single person during their presidency during last night's debate.

Wow, I sure am glad I'm voting for the candidate who will actually enforce my country's laws.

They promised they wouldn't deport kids and illegal immigrants who don't have criminal records.  I doubt they would keep that promise, though.

Regardless of the election results, people are waking up and beginning to distrust the media and see the obvious strings.

What?  People don't trust the media?  This is a radical new concept that might just be too edgy and subversive for me to wrap my mind around.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2016, 05:31:17 PM
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
I'm not sure I can. 
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/

And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

But eh.  Whatever.  Point is, he's a business man.  If there's no profit, why keep going?

What? In what universe does that make sense? Hillary's a mother so she'll bake cookies for America. Sanders is a Yankee so he'll go to war with the South. Trump is a businessman so he will quit if he's not making a profit.

This may shock you Dave, but people are more than their titles. You fire off all these things you're clearly parroting from whatever Facebook feeds you follow, and when asked to back up your assertions your response is, "I'm not sure I can." How about instead of regurgitating whatever you read that aligns with your presuppositions, you state things you can handle.  Lets start with a small one:

Trump is going to make America great again. (You should repeat this often.)

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But how about this statement:
I hope America gets the tyrant it wants.  I hope Donald Trump spits in the face of allies and enemies alike.  I hope he rips apart NAFTA, economically fucks China, and violates the 4th amendment finding all the illegals.

I'll be here in a civilized country, avoiding America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 10, 2016, 07:02:55 PM

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Ohhhhh, so you meant to say that you heard he filed bankruptcy a couple times and closed a few projects before completion and in your ignorance of business you assumed that's the scarlet-letter mark of a failed businessperson. Gotcha.

Perhaps -- and this one's gunna blow your mind -- perhaps John Oliver doesn't know everything about everything and his show is -- hold on! -- just out to make ratings.

Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But that's not what you said is it? You said that because he's a businessman he will quit when there is no profit in it. You're just backpedaling now that you've been shown the inanity in your statement. However, as you appear to have forgotten, we are on a forum and I (or anyone really) can scroll up or click back to see what you said. I'm doing it now, lets see... Yep, Dave said that if there is no profit in it, Trump won't keep going. Looking for the part where you said say that their career will influence a politician's presidency... looking... looking... looking...
Nope, seems like you just made that shit right up when you were pressed on your ridiculous statements. If, perhaps, that's the message you meant to convey all along, then may I suggest you be more cognizant of the words you use. It will alleviate all this double-speaking backtalk you have to do to qualify all your statements and get us back on topic about how Trump will make America great again.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2016, 07:50:10 PM
I'll be here in a civilized country, avoiding America.

The country you're staying in has some of the strongest immigration laws on the planet,   Dave. You're one to talk about Trump when you live in a place described as one of the most xenophobic places in Europe.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2016, 08:30:50 PM

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Ohhhhh, so you meant to say that you heard he filed bankruptcy a couple times and closed a few projects before completion and in your ignorance of business you assumed that's the scarlet-letter mark of a failed businessperson. Gotcha.
Hold on... Where did I say he's a failed businessman?  He's obviously not as he holds a lot of properties, casinos, brands, tv shows, etc...  Why he wishes to give them up to be president, however, is an interesting question.

Quote
Perhaps -- and this one's gunna blow your mind -- perhaps John Oliver doesn't know everything about everything and his show is -- hold on! -- just out to make ratings.
British Documentary, actually.  On Norwegian television.
Also, Trump is out to make money and an image.  At least, he has been for 30+ years.

Quote
Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But that's not what you said is it? You said that because he's a businessman he will quit when there is no profit in it. You're just backpedaling now that you've been shown the inanity in your statement. However, as you appear to have forgotten, we are on a forum and I (or anyone really) can scroll up or click back to see what you said. I'm doing it now, lets see... Yep, Dave said that if there is no profit in it, Trump won't keep going. Looking for the part where you said say that their career will influence a politician's presidency... looking... looking... looking...
Nope, seems like you just made that shit right up when you were pressed on your ridiculous statements. If, perhaps, that's the message you meant to convey all along, then may I suggest you be more cognizant of the words you use. It will alleviate all this double-speaking backtalk you have to do to qualify all your statements and get us back on topic about how Trump will make America great again.
My appologies, allow me to clarify:
Trump is a successful businessman.  He is worth a few Billion in assets.  He is not stupid.  As a smart, successful businessman, he will not waste time on failed ventures.  He will not continue to dump money into a non-profitable company without thinking it will be profitable.  He will abandon anything that will damage his image or his fortune and fight, very very hard, to maintain both.

So, I expect a Trump presidency to be full of force, policy changes based on current need, and the interests of Trump's presidency and image to be more important than other people or the nation.  He will make himself great.  And nothing anyone says will persuade him that he's succeeded.


Maybe that's what you want.  Maybe that's what America wants.  But when president Trump is told No by congress for the first time, something he isn't accustomed to, it will not be pretty.  I look forward to it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 10, 2016, 08:32:25 PM
I don't know what Americans are so terrified of. It's not a dictatorship, presidents can't simply pass anything they want into legislation. However, if you look at Trump's policies that are actually reasonable, they're not that bad:

-anti-TPP
-reducing trade deficits
-bringing back overseas money on a single-time tax
-health care reform
-improved relations with Russia

he doesn't frighten me because i think he's going to be a despot.  he frightens me because he represents the abandonment of substance for form.  rushy's post basically spells out what i think all trump supporters share in common: the belief that it doesn't matter how dogshit trump's policies are so long as he says all the right ultranationalist keywords in all his speeches.  i am frightened by the belief that it doesn't matter what trump says so long as he is angry, hateful, and insulting.  those are poor qualities in anyone, let alone in the president.

and for some reason none of these supporters have managed to yet figure out that psst hey you know that he could just be saying whatever he thinks you want to hear, right?  it's mind-boggling.  like maybe when he says "we're going to slash taxes and slash the budget and also keep social security spending and medicare/medicaid spending and increase military spending," we should all take a moment to reflect on how dumb that is and tell him to get lost.  it frightens me to think that maybe he could walk out on stage and declare that he's going to cut taxes to zero and increase military spending to infinity, and maybe he wouldn't lose any supporters in the process.

his trade deficit talk is just as outrageous, but again his supporters just lap it up because "yeah fuck china go america we rule they drool hahahaha!"  he displays either an ignorance of economics so profound that it should be immediately disqualifying, or a willingness to lie that should be equally discrediting.  trade deficits are not indicators of poor economic output.  if anything, the opposite is true.  this is because current account deficits are balanced by capital account surpluses.  by definition.  basically everything that trump says about trade deficits is breathtakingly, unforgivably wrong.  he appears to fundamentally misunderstand how our economy works.

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/econ/eop/2006/2006-6.pdf
Quote
A country’s capital account balance reflects its net sales or purchases of assets with other countries. Its current account balance reflects its net sales or purchases of goods and services with other countries along with net flows of income and transfer payments. The current account and capital account must exactly offset one another. This means the value of a current account surplus will be mirrored by the value of a capital account deficit, and a current account deficit will be mirrored by a capital account surplus of equal value.
[...]
In 2004 (the most recent calendar year for which data exist), the United States ran a current account deficit of $668 billion. This deficit meant the United States imported more goods and services than it exported. The counterpart to the U.S. current account deficit was a U.S. capital account surplus. This surplus meant that foreign investors purchased more U.S. assets than U.S. investors purchased in foreign assets, investing more in the United States than the United States invested abroad. By economic definition, a country’s current and capital account balances must offset one another. Therefore, the U.S. current account deficit was matched by a capital account surplus of $668 billion.
[...]
Because foreigners invested more in the United States than the United States invested abroad, the United States received net foreign capital and financial inflows (hereafter called net capital inflows). Countries like the United States that run capital account surpluses and current account deficits receive net foreign capital inflows.
[...]
What factors encourage large and persistent U.S. foreign capital inflows? Several factors, which reflect U.S. economic strengths, encourage these
inflows. In particular, a high rate of U.S. growth encourages foreign capital to be “pushed” toward the United States.
[...]
In principle, the United States can continue to receive net capital inflows (and run current account deficits) indefinitely provided it uses these inflows
in ways that promote its future growth and help the United States to remain an attractive destination for foreign investment. The key issue concerning U.S. foreign capital inflows is not their absolute level but the efficiency with which they are used. Provided capital inflows promote strong U.S. investment, productivity, and growth, they provide important benefits to the United States as well as to countries that are investing in the United States.

http://www.cato.org/publications/trade-policy-analysis/tradebalance-creed-debunking-belief-imports-trade-deficits-are-drag-growth
Quote
The consensus creed is based on a misunderstanding of how U.S. gross domestic product is calculated. Imports are not a “subtraction” from GDP. They are merely removed from the final calculation of GDP because they are not a part of domestic production.

Contrary to the prevailing view, imports are not a “leakage” of demand abroad. In the annual U.S. balance of payments, all transactions balance. The net outflow of dollars to purchase imports over exports are offset each year by a net inflow of foreign capital to purchase U.S. assets. This capital surplus stimulates the U.S. economy while boosting our productive capacity.

An examination of the past 30 years of U.S. economic performance offers no evidence that a rising level of imports or growing trade deficits have negatively affected the U.S. economy. In fact, since 1980, the U.S. economy has grown more than three times faster during periods when the trade deficit was expanding as a share of GDP compared to periods when it was contracting. Stock market appreciation, manufacturing output, and job growth were all significantly more robust during periods of expanding imports and trade deficits.

https://www.aei.org/publication/another-name-for-trade-deficit-is-capital-account-surplus-balance-of-payments-always-0/
Quote
As a direct consequence of our current account deficits, the U.S. economy has been the beneficiary of more than $8 trillion worth of capital inflows from foreigners since 1980.  Because the Balance of Payment accounts are based on double-entry bookkeeping, the annual current account and capital account have to net to zero, so that any current account (trade) deficit (surplus) is offset one-to-one by a capital account surplus (deficit) and the balance of payments therefore always nets out to (equals) zero. And that’s why it’s called the “balance” of payments, because once we account for trade flows and capital flows, everything balances, and there are no deficits or surpluses on a net basis.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ahpWrFO8WFM/TZkyZmhwGLI/AAAAAAAAPKE/Tm_wnRXSOvs/s400/bp.jpg)

if you want to decry the lack of manufacturing jobs available in the us, then blame robots, not china.  china has very little to do with it.  manufacturing output continues to increase in the us.  that jobs don't keep up with the increase is a function of the increased output of workers, not trade policy: http://conexus.cberdata.org/files/MfgReality.pdf
(http://i.imgur.com/KDmO4oy.png)

what ultimately disappoints me is not that trump couldn't pass a macro final or whatever.  i couldn't, and i can't pretend to understand how our economy works.  but it really didn't take me that long to find a slew of experts in economics all saying "uh, you know current account deficits are actually fine, and if anything they only happen because our economy is so fucking rad to maxxxxxxxx."  if there are economic experts out there who agree with trump's characterization of our economic relationship with china, i'm struggling to find them.

oh look another obnoxiously long gg post.  neat.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 10, 2016, 08:56:33 PM

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Ohhhhh, so you meant to say that you heard he filed bankruptcy a couple times and closed a few projects before completion and in your ignorance of business you assumed that's the scarlet-letter mark of a failed businessperson. Gotcha.
Hold on... Where did I say he's a failed businessman?  He's obviously not as he holds a lot of properties, casinos, brands, tv shows, etc...  Why he wishes to give them up to be president, however, is an interesting question.

Quote
Perhaps -- and this one's gunna blow your mind -- perhaps John Oliver doesn't know everything about everything and his show is -- hold on! -- just out to make ratings.
British Documentary, actually.  On Norwegian television.
Also, Trump is out to make money and an image.  At least, he has been for 30+ years.

Quote
Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But that's not what you said is it? You said that because he's a businessman he will quit when there is no profit in it. You're just backpedaling now that you've been shown the inanity in your statement. However, as you appear to have forgotten, we are on a forum and I (or anyone really) can scroll up or click back to see what you said. I'm doing it now, lets see... Yep, Dave said that if there is no profit in it, Trump won't keep going. Looking for the part where you said say that their career will influence a politician's presidency... looking... looking... looking...
Nope, seems like you just made that shit right up when you were pressed on your ridiculous statements. If, perhaps, that's the message you meant to convey all along, then may I suggest you be more cognizant of the words you use. It will alleviate all this double-speaking backtalk you have to do to qualify all your statements and get us back on topic about how Trump will make America great again.
My appologies, allow me to clarify:
Trump is a successful businessman.  He is worth a few Billion in assets.  He is not stupid.  As a smart, successful businessman, he will not waste time on failed ventures.  He will not continue to dump money into a non-profitable company without thinking it will be profitable.  He will abandon anything that will damage his image or his fortune and fight, very very hard, to maintain both.

So, I expect a Trump presidency to be full of force, policy changes based on current need, and the interests of Trump's presidency and image to be more important than other people or the nation.  He will make himself great.  And nothing anyone says will persuade him that he's succeeded.


Maybe that's what you want.  Maybe that's what America wants.  But when president Trump is told No by congress for the first time, something he isn't accustomed to, it will not be pretty.  I look forward to it.

That's much more clear. I'm glad you could finally articulate this idea.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 10, 2016, 09:15:08 PM

Just wondered which era of American history you would turn the clocks back too? It's always a bit of a mystery when I hear people harking back to the golden age as they seem to cherry pick bits from here and there, forgetting all the shit that went with it.
The British nationalist have some mythical amalgamation of Richard the lion-heart (a particularly bad time to be in Britain if you know your history) and the height of the Victorians (see Dickens for the down side), so when was America great?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2016, 09:21:33 PM

Just wondered which era of American history you would turn the clocks back too? It's always a bit of a mystery when I hear people harking back to the golden age as they seem to cherry pick bits from here and there, forgetting all the shit that went with it.
The British nationalist have some mythical amalgamation of Richard the lion-heart (a particularly bad time to be in Britain if you know your history) and the height of the Victorians (see Dickens for the down side), so when was America great?
The 20s or 50s.
We were fresh from the war, great economy, everyone was happy except for those who were socially oppressed (but who cares about them, am I right?).  Plus we got "In God We Trust" put on our money and "Under God" in our pledge in the 50s.  What's not to love?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 11, 2016, 03:42:38 AM
so when was America great?

1980 to 1988.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 11, 2016, 03:43:44 AM
The 90s were pretty fucking sweet too.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 11, 2016, 04:32:43 AM
The 90s were pretty fucking sweet too.

Damn right. I grew up in the 90s so nostalgia is a factor but everything seemed better, before we had smart phones and social media, before the internet was weaponized into a weapon of mass distraction.

But there was a pretty bad crack epidemic we delt with for a while.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 11, 2016, 04:43:05 AM
I don't know what Americans are so terrified of. It's not a dictatorship, presidents can't simply pass anything they want into legislation. However, if you look at Trump's policies that are actually reasonable, they're not that bad:

-anti-TPP
-reducing trade deficits
-bringing back overseas money on a single-time tax
-health care reform
-improved relations with Russia

he doesn't frighten me because i think he's going to be a despot.  he frightens me because he represents the abandonment of substance for form.  rushy's post basically spells out what i think all trump supporters share in common: the belief that it doesn't matter how dogshit trump's policies are so long as he says all the right ultranationalist keywords in all his speeches.  i am frightened by the belief that it doesn't matter what trump says so long as he is angry, hateful, and insulting.  those are poor qualities in anyone, let alone in the president.

and for some reason none of these supporters have managed to yet figure out that psst hey you know that he could just be saying whatever he thinks you want to hear, right?  it's mind-boggling.  like maybe when he says "we're going to slash taxes and slash the budget and also keep social security spending and medicare/medicaid spending and increase military spending," we should all take a moment to reflect on how dumb that is and tell him to get lost.  it frightens me to think that maybe he could walk out on stage and declare that he's going to cut taxes to zero and increase military spending to infinity, and maybe he wouldn't lose any supporters in the process.

his trade deficit talk is just as outrageous, but again his supporters just lap it up because "yeah fuck china go america we rule they drool hahahaha!"  he displays either an ignorance of economics so profound that it should be immediately disqualifying, or a willingness to lie that should be equally discrediting.  trade deficits are not indicators of poor economic output.  if anything, the opposite is true.  this is because current account deficits are balanced by capital account surpluses.  by definition.  basically everything that trump says about trade deficits is breathtakingly, unforgivably wrong.  he appears to fundamentally misunderstand how our economy works.

[...]

what ultimately disappoints me is not that trump couldn't pass a macro final or whatever.  i couldn't, and i can't pretend to understand how our economy works.  but it really didn't take me that long to find a slew of experts in economics all saying "uh, you know current account deficits are actually fine, and if anything they only happen because our economy is so fucking rad to maxxxxxxxx."  if there are economic experts out there who agree with trump's characterization of our economic relationship with china, i'm struggling to find them.

oh look another obnoxiously long gg post.  neat.

Trade deficits may not be as bad as Trump makes them out to be, but working to reduce them is hardly bad either - unless you wish to claim that creating jobs is bad. And I think it's kinda interesting that you think he says "whatever we want to hear" when discussing a topic people barely understand in the first place. Just out of curiosity though, if you think Trump is misinformed and only speaking to people's fantasies, what do you think of Bernie Sanders? His policies are deliberately impossible and carry intrinsic and easy to understand benefits to the working class and college kids. His whole platform is just fantasy fulfillment. Shouldn't the support he's gaining be just as frightening to you, if not more so?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 11, 2016, 12:18:20 PM
The 90s were pretty fucking sweet too.

Damn right. I grew up in the 90s so nostalgia is a factor but everything seemed better, before we had smart phones and social media, before the internet was weaponized into a weapon of mass distraction.

But there was a pretty bad crack epidemic we delt with for a while.

Yeah, thanks Al Gore for the internet.  What a jerk.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2016, 07:37:15 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/09/heres-the-math-on-why-obsessing-over-florida-makes-no-sense/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 12, 2016, 01:04:47 AM
Trade deficits may not be as bad as Trump makes them out to be, but working to reduce them is hardly bad either - unless you wish to claim that creating jobs is bad.

but fixating on the trade deficit is to ignore half of the ledger of our balance of trade with china.  a trade deficit is a capital account surplus by definition: we imported more goods than we exported, so by definition we exported more of our financial assets (dollars) than we imported.  why is selling dollars for goods better or worse than selling goods for dollars?  from the perspective of balance of trade, they're equal.  reducing the trade deficit isn't per se good for growth, and manufacturing employment decline is empirically driven by production, not trade.

let's suppose that i run a firm in america, and i want to buy computers for my business.  so, i spend some of my dollars importing computers from china.  they get dollars, and i get a computer.  one day my accountant comes to me and says, "bad business practices, dude.  we're losing to china!  we've imported a bunch of computers from china, but we've exported no goods to them at all!  we're running a trade deficit!  unless we start exporting goods to china, we're in real trouble!"

on the other side of the globe is the firm from which i bought computers.  one day their accountant goes to the ceo and says, "bad business practices, dude.  we're losing to america!  we've imported a bunch of capital from america, but we've exported no capital to them at all!  we're running a capital account deficit!  unless we start exporting financial assets to america, we're in real trouble!"

no doubt this analogy is fatally flawed somewhere, but i only want it to demonstrate that both of these hypothetical accountants are saying the same thing and making the same mistake: failing to acknowledge the other side of the ledger.  neither of them is running a true "deficit," they're just trading financial assets for goods.  whether or not the deal is good for me is just a function of what my firm can do with what i just bought.  if i buy goods that help me expand my business and hire new employees, then it's obviously good for growth and employment.  if i buy a bunch of dirt and leave it sitting in a pile, then it's a bad deal for growth.

likewise, the value of our trade with china can't be understood by looking at one side of the ledger or the other.  its relationship to growth and employment is a function of what we're buying.

And I think it's kinda interesting that you think he says "whatever we want to hear" when discussing a topic people barely understand in the first place. Just out of curiosity though, if you think Trump is misinformed and only speaking to people's fantasies, what do you think of Bernie Sanders? His policies are deliberately impossible and carry intrinsic and easy to understand benefits to the working class and college kids. His whole platform is just fantasy fulfillment. Shouldn't the support he's gaining be just as frightening to you, if not more so?

i mentioned already that i think sanders is employing much of the same rhetoric of fearpandering (that's a word, right?) as trump.  i find most of what sanders has to say about wall street/finance/capitalism/free trade extremely divisive and counterproductive.  that said, i don't find it frightening the way i find trump's nationalism frightening.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 12, 2016, 11:17:41 AM
I don't think it's fair to generalize trade deficits as a literal non-issue as you seem to portray them as, but if it's that much of a trigger to you, I'm willing to drop it - my point will stand just fine without it.

Meanwhile, these fascist BLM thugs in Chicago are playing right into Trump's hands - don't they realize that turning him into a martyr will only guarantee him the presidency? It happened with Reagan, it will happen with Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 12, 2016, 12:45:22 PM
BLM simultaneously made Trump look good and caused Kasich, Rubio and Cruz to crucify themselves by blaming Trump for the riot. BLM and Bernie supporters just did more for Trump than the rally alone ever could.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 02:11:02 PM
http://www.redstate.com/diary/imperfectamerica/2016/03/11/art-steal...-democrats-voting-gop-contests-make-huuggeee-difference/

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5ewOUTjlmkM/VuPwzRgLfjI/AAAAAAAABy4/6tWHh99CytwMLbIFY6Yw9F7v45o3_4lgQ/s640/StealInfoGraphicX2.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 12, 2016, 02:46:50 PM
Well yeah, no shit states where independents and democrats vote makes a difference. Cruz is a looney that only the most hardcore neocons could possibly like. Trump is a moderate that is drawing the old Reagan Democrats out of the woodworks. This is why Cruz has zero chance of ever winning the general election. Ol' Lyin' Ted makes people so uncomfortable a neurologist had to investigate his creepy face: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fallible-mind/201601/why-ted-cruz-s-facial-expression-makes-me-uneasy

Trump is already proving he is better than the other candidates on both sides of the election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 12, 2016, 02:55:58 PM
Yeah, I don't know how people can think Cruz stands a chance in a general election. There simply aren't enough ultra-conservatives in the US for that to be mathematically possible. You need the moderate vote to win a general election, which Trump has.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 03:10:47 PM
A general election is won because of three basic factors (they proved to be a decisive element at least in the last four presidential elections): Hispanic vote, African-American vote and the Catholic vote.

8 out of 10 Hispanics view Trump as unfavorable.

Given the KKK comments, you can imagine the percentage of the Black vote actually going to Trump.

You don't argue with a Jesuit Pontiff, if you want the Catholic vote to be in your favor.


Democrats are praying that Trump will make it into the final: no matter who is up against him, either Clinton or Sanders, it will turn into a disaster for the GOP (not to mention the Senate and the House elections, where prospecting republican challengers/incumbents will actually have to run anti-Trump ads).

Virtually the ONLY issue that has benefited Trump was/is the trade/economy: a clever ad campaign focusing on the university scam will put an end to his image as a successful businessman.

Let us remember also the tax returns issue: in just a few months' time, Trump will have no choice but to release them to the public/media's scrutiny.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 12, 2016, 03:18:44 PM
You're placing way too much emphasis on the KKK thing. It was a petty media spin that nobody took seriously.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on March 12, 2016, 06:54:47 PM
BLM simultaneously made Trump look good and caused Kasich, Rubio and Cruz to crucify themselves by blaming Trump for the riot. BLM and Bernie supporters just did more for Trump than the rally alone ever could.
This is good for Bitcoin.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 07:25:56 PM
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11141692/trump-university-fraud-lawsuit

Bad news for Donald Trump: a court strengthened a fraud lawsuit against Trump University

Before the presidential campaign is over, Donald Trump could end up having to testify in three separate cases about his allegedly fraudulent university.

A New York appeals court ruled Monday that a $40 million lawsuit from the state's attorney general could proceed, and that it could include evidence from up to six years ago about Trump University's deceptive practices.

Trump University wasn't a university but a multilevel marketing scam

Trump University — which was never licensed to call itself a "university" — shut down in 2010. But the legal fallout, including Schneiderman's suit, has continued.

The university, Schneiderman has charged, was a "bait and switch," a classic multilevel marketing scheme: People are told that the real benefits they want are only available if they keep paying, essentially urging them to throw good money after bad.

People were lured into a free workshop with marketing materials that promised they'd learn Trump's real estate secrets from his "handpicked" instructors and maybe even from Trump himself. Instead, they were urged to sign up for a three-day seminar that cost nearly $1,500. And at that seminar, they were pushed to sign up for an elite mentorship program that could cost as much as $35,000 per year.

Trump didn't handpick the mentors. He didn't write the curriculum. He didn't even show up at the seminars. Instead, students got to take a photo with a cardboard cutout of him.

Even the most expensive mentorship didn't deliver, Schneiderman's lawsuit charges. Some mentors simply vanished. Others had no background in real estate at all.

When Trump's candidacy looked like a publicity stunt, Trump University mostly flew under the radar.

Two class-action lawsuits from Trump University students are also working their way through the legal system in San Diego district court. Trump University's treatment of the elderly is getting special scrutiny: Some of the plaintiffs are over 60 and sank tens of thousands of dollars into Trump University's workshops and mentorships.

The final pretrial conferences for the cases are in March and June, and at least one could go to trial as soon as August.

US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, has said he's eager to move the cases forward and has acknowledged that it's unusual to have a presidential candidate in his courtroom, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. And it's likely that Trump himself will have to testify: He's on the witness list.

As Time magazine's Steve Brill pointed out, Trump University's victims often look a lot like Trump's voters: lower middle class, white, often elderly, and worried about their economic situation.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 07:39:39 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/01/trumpocrisy-how-donald-became-billionaire-and-what-means-rest-us
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 08:17:34 PM
http://whitetrashtest.com/tag/trump-university-scam/ (the best analysis of the trump university scam)

The Attorney General noted that at the free seminars, instructors played a video featuring Donald Trump telling prospective students, ‘We’re going to have professors that are absolutely terrific – terrific people, terrific brains, successful, the best’ and noted that they were ‘all people that are handpicked by me.’”

Sound familiar?  These allegations are easy to believe because those words mimic what Donald Trump is presently telling the American people in his run for the Republican presidential nomination.  Elect Trump, and America will be great again.  Elect Trump, and he will handpick the best and the brightest and the most terrific, tough minds to negotiate our deals and solve all our problems.  Elect Trump, and we will all be successful and rich beyond our expectations.

In the same way as Donald Trump conducts his presidential campaign, Trump laces his pitch for Trump University with glittering generalities and get-rich-quick language.  Trump entices his audience by telling them that if they sign up with Trump University and take action, then they will become a success, unless they simply don’t love it, in which case, “it’s never, ever going to work.”  When they arrive at the seminar, the Trump University pitch keeps increasing the size of the carrot in front of the donkey.  Follow Trump, and all of America becomes rich and successful, more rich and successful with each new speech he gives.  Don’t follow Trump, and the people of America really don’t want to be successful and are content with being losers.

Trump wants us to believe he will replace all the incompetent, stupid, weak, lightweight, political hacks with the brightest, most terrific, successful, best of the best, toughest people who will manage with maximum efficiency and negotiate deals so good they will fix everything Trump perceives to be wrong with American.  But what does the experience with Trump University foretell, and why are so many people suing him for what they perceive to have been a scam?

“Given the state of the law, [Trump] would be at substantial risk of being embroiled in these [Trump University] lawsuits while serving as president.”
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 12, 2016, 09:10:47 PM
BLM simultaneously made Trump look good and caused Kasich, Rubio and Cruz to crucify themselves by blaming Trump for the riot. BLM and Bernie supporters just did more for Trump than the rally alone ever could.
This is good for Bitcoin.

Hilariously enough I did think about that exact statement while I was typing. "Shit, this is just like the 'this is good for bitcoin' meme, eh, whatever" The event has already made a genuine impact on poll numbers, so it isn't like I was wrong in any case.


Rubio is going the way of Jeb! and he'll be asking people to 'please clap' any day now: http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2016/03/08/the-rubio-rally-that-wasnt-n2130095
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 07:15:06 AM
https://youtu.be/tE_G0hLByqI

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/trump-wine-is-built-on-acres-of-lies.html

Is that true?  The wbsite does say that its not affiliated with Donald Tump...


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 13, 2016, 07:39:07 AM
https://youtu.be/tE_G0hLByqI

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/trump-wine-is-built-on-acres-of-lies.html

Is that true?  The wbsite does say that its not affiliated with Donald Tump...

It's a Trump Wine, just like Trump said. It's his son's company.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 13, 2016, 01:15:30 PM
The tolerant left:

https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/708525579600064512
https://twitter.com/HighCapacity223/status/708584057102151684

Please remember that Trump supporters are all scum of the earth evil racists. (◕‿◕✿)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 01:28:38 PM
The tolerant left:

https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/708525579600064512
https://twitter.com/HighCapacity223/status/708584057102151684

Please remember that Trump supporters are all scum of the earth evil racists. (◕‿◕✿)
I looked at the videos but had no sound so I dkdn't hear anything. 

Not sure what it proves.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 13, 2016, 01:31:35 PM
The tolerant left:

https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/708525579600064512
https://twitter.com/HighCapacity223/status/708584057102151684

Please remember that Trump supporters are all scum of the earth evil racists. (◕‿◕✿)
I looked at the videos but had no sound so I dkdn't hear anything. 

Not sure what it proves.

Um, okay. Maybe next time watch the videos with sound before making a post with zero input?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 13, 2016, 01:37:52 PM
Are you okay, Dave? Are they giving you any strange pills or injections in Norway?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 03:23:21 PM
Are you okay, Dave? Are they giving you any strange pills or injections in Norway?

I don't think I am ok.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 13, 2016, 03:53:14 PM
I don't think it's fair to generalize trade deficits as a literal non-issue as you seem to portray them as, but if it's that much of a trigger to you, I'm willing to drop it - my point will stand just fine without it.

to be clear, i'm not saying that trade deficits can never be problematic.  i'm saying that they don't tell you anything in a vacuum.  the factors that determine whether or not our trade policies are sustainable can't be reduced to "we import more goods than we export."  that's asinine.  his china policy is literally 'china is protectionist and that's fucked up so let's be protectionist and beat china at protectionism.  somehow.  and hope that that doesn't have any other bad effects.'  that so many people just gobble it up because it feels good is disappointing.

his budget proposal is garbage.  his trade policy is garbage.  his immigration policy is garbage.  his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.  he's a joke, but it's a funny joke, so let's make that joke the president?  ugh.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 13, 2016, 04:02:57 PM
his budget proposal is garbage.  his trade policy is garbage.  his immigration policy is garbage.  his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.  he's a joke, but it's a funny joke, so let's make that joke the president?  ugh.

Well, you don't have better options, so sure.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 13, 2016, 06:52:53 PM
his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.
ooh, dis gon' be gud.

Please, tell me more!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2016, 06:56:58 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432702/donald-trump-peak-here-republican-primary

“Peak Trump” — the apogee before the dwindling — might be approaching for the perhaps bogus billionaire (would a real one bother with fleecing those who matriculate at Trump University?) who purports to prove his business wizardry, colossal wealth, and stupendous generosity not by releasing his tax returns but by displaying a pile of steaks.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 13, 2016, 07:02:35 PM
his budget proposal is garbage.  his trade policy is garbage.  his immigration policy is garbage.  his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.  he's a joke, but it's a funny joke, so let's make that joke the president?  ugh.

Well, you don't have better options, so sure.

there are (and were) plenty of alternatives: kasich, clinton, bush, rubio, sanders, nolan ryan, my neighbor's new cat, an interesting leaf i saw outside once, etc.  maybe even ted cruz.  those are all better options than 'being smart is dumb let's just be mad.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-protester-isis-hoax_us_56e57d2be4b0860f99d951ab
Quote
“No, no, no, no, he was,” Trump said. “If you look on the Internet, if you look at clips, he was waving an American flag... He was walking, dragging the American flag on the ground."

Trump was referring to a video posted on the Internet that shows DiMassimo marching and dragging an American flag. The video appears to depict a protest at Wright State University, which is in Dayton. The video Trump tweeted was overdubbed with Arabic music and text.

But the video appears to be a parody or a hoax, and no law enforcement agency has suggested that DiMassimo has terrorist ties of any kind.

Still, Trump remained adamant.
[...]
When Todd reminded him again that the video appears to be a hoax and that no law enforcement official has suggested any terrorist ties, Trump remained firm in his contention and the trustworthiness of its source.

“All I know is what's on the Internet,” the GOP front-runner said.

lol yeah i want this asshole to be the president.

he's already admitted that he wants to empower the justice department to sue journalists who oppose him, and now he's basically giving us a preview of coming attractions on how he'll probably deal with white house protestors: just assert that they're terrorists and have them arrested.  that'll be neat for everybody.

his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.
ooh, dis gon' be gud.

Please, tell me more!

not literally all of them.

is that better?  was i precise enough for you?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 13, 2016, 07:09:03 PM
there are (and were) plenty of alternatives: kasich, clinton, bush, rubio, sanders, nolan ryan, my neighbor's new cat, an interesting leaf i saw outside once, etc.  maybe even ted cruz.

I don't agree that those are better options. Can you explain why you think they are?

Quote
those are all better options than 'being smart is dumb let's just be mad.'

That's not what Trump is, so that's fine.

Quote
he's already admitted that he wants to empower the justice department to sue journalists who oppose him, and now he's basically giving us a preview of coming attractions on how he'll probably deal with white house protestors: just assert that they're terrorists and have them arrested.  that'll be neat for everybody.

I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 07:17:56 PM
I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.

I don't know.  I mean, it's already been ruled that the first amendment allows the press to lie so Trump really has to take it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 13, 2016, 07:28:31 PM
I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.

I don't know.  I mean, it's already been ruled that the first amendment allows the press to lie so Trump really has to take it.

They're allowed to lie insofar as the government can't pass a law prohibiting them from lying, but they can still be sued for it.  In any case, there are no federal laws on defamation, so there isn't a lot that the president can actually do about it.  I suppose he could try and get one passed, but it would be tough to get it past the courts.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 07:38:31 PM
I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.

I don't know.  I mean, it's already been ruled that the first amendment allows the press to lie so Trump really has to take it.

They're allowed to lie insofar as the government can't pass a law prohibiting them from lying, but they can still be sued for it.  In any case, there are no federal laws on defamation, so there isn't a lot that the president can actually do about it.  I suppose he could try and get one passed, but it would be tough to get it past the courts.
Yeah but lawsuits against mega news networks are bound to fail or be tied up and cost more money than most people make.



On another note: What happens to Donald's corporate holdings when he's president?  He can't actually use them or manage them, right?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 11:46:27 PM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/13/470294270/trump-on-rally-violence-dont-accept-responsibility-might-pay-legal-bills

Ok, seriously, The Fuck?
How can you lie so blatantly and keep lying with the same story even when you have clips right there in front of you?

I can get that he'd say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys but when he's got clips of him literally telling people to use violence at his rallys, I ..

No, this man can't be sane or serious.  I'm sorry, he's either delusional or he's trolling all of America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 14, 2016, 02:14:00 AM
On another note: What happens to Donald's corporate holdings when he's president?  He can't actually use them or manage them, right?

He said his daughter, Ivanka, will take over.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/13/470294270/trump-on-rally-violence-dont-accept-responsibility-might-pay-legal-bills

Ok, seriously, The Fuck?
How can you lie so blatantly and keep lying with the same story even when you have clips right there in front of you?

I can get that he'd say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys but when he's got clips of him literally telling people to use violence at his rallys, I ..

No, this man can't be sane or serious.  I'm sorry, he's either delusional or he's trolling all of America.

He is saying that protesters who interrupt his rallies should be attacked, and they should. These guys are constantly pushing and shoving people and tearing up signs, so it's no surprise that Trump would think they should be punched in the face. The media hates Trump so they only report a protester being attacked, not the fact that the protester is always some thug.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2016, 06:15:57 AM
On another note: What happens to Donald's corporate holdings when he's president?  He can't actually use them or manage them, right?

He said his daughter, Ivanka, will take over.
Good to know he'll still be in contol then.

Quote
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/13/470294270/trump-on-rally-violence-dont-accept-responsibility-might-pay-legal-bills

Ok, seriously, The Fuck?
How can you lie so blatantly and keep lying with the same story even when you have clips right there in front of you?

I can get that he'd say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys but when he's got clips of him literally telling people to use violence at his rallys, I ..

No, this man can't be sane or serious.  I'm sorry, he's either delusional or he's trolling all of America.

He is saying that protesters who interrupt his rallies should be attacked, and they should. These guys are constantly pushing and shoving people and tearing up signs, so it's no surprise that Trump would think they should be punched in the face. The media hates Trump so they only report a protester being attacked, not the fact that the protester is always some thug.
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 14, 2016, 09:49:58 AM
not literally all of them.

is that better?  was i precise enough for you?
You're improving, but I'd still like to see some literally illegal policies :D
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 14, 2016, 11:39:40 AM
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.

In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.

He wants to make sure these idiots are punished for attacking people at his rally. If you had been keeping up with politics you would have known far before the Chicago rally that BLM has been upsetting his rallies for several months.

It sounds to me like you've already decided you hate Trump and are now desperate for any information to support you. Why should I waste the truth on you?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2016, 12:06:11 PM
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.

In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.

He wants to make sure these idiots are punished for attacking people at his rally. If you had been keeping up with politics you would have known far before the Chicago rally that BLM has been upsetting his rallies for several months.

It sounds to me like you've already decided you hate Trump and are now desperate for any information to support you. Why should I waste the truth on you?
Then why does he say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys?  He clearly does!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: drevko on March 14, 2016, 01:52:09 PM
And? Who cares?

First, the other candidates may have their corruptions too.

Second, people support Trump in spite of his know corruption because they are tired of politically correct bullshit, they are ANGRY, they don't give a fuck about past dealings of Trump.

It's not about Trump per se as an individual, it's now about a symbol, the war against the mass media and the social justice warriors, the awakening against the censure and inquisition of the mass media and their hypocrisy.

Facts of corruption of Trump DON'T MATTER, it's an emotional war of many who are tired of the system and of being told who is "acceptable" and who is not.

The others are not better, their voters don't give a fuck about trump university.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2016, 02:21:06 PM
And? Who cares?

First, the other candidates may have their corruptions too.

Second, people support Trump in spite of his know corruption because they are tired of politically correct bullshit, they are ANGRY, they don't give a fuck about past dealings of Trump.

It's not about Trump per se as an individual, it's now about a symbol, the war against the mass media and the social justice warriors, the awakening against the censure and inquisition of the mass media and their hypocrisy.

Facts of corruption of Trump DON'T MATTER, it's an emotional war of many who are tired of the system and of being told who is "acceptable" and who is not.

The others are not better, their voters don't give a fuck about trump university.
I am fully aware of the reasons for the Rise of Trump.
He's a fascist speaking to people who demand action against (X).

Trump is right, he could murder someone on 5th ave. in daylight and not lose any points or votes.  And that is why people should care: Because he could murder you and everyone would cheer your death
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 14, 2016, 02:53:17 PM
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.

In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.

This is what I call the Dave Dance. Let me walk you though the steps:

1: Dave blasts out a comment that's demonstrably false and clearly shows his ignorance.
2: You correct him on his assertion.
3: Dave pretends like you misunderstood him and tells you what he really meant when he's really just changing what he said in step 1.
4: Repeat.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2016, 03:20:35 PM
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.

In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.

This is what I call the Dave Dance. Let me walk you though the steps:

1: Dave blasts out a comment that's demonstrably false and clearly shows his ignorance.
2: You correct him on his assertion.
3: Dave pretends like you misunderstood him and tells you what he really meant when he's really just changing what he said in step 1.
4: Repeat.


Explain to me how Trump saying he does not condone violence at his rallys is false.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 14, 2016, 04:15:31 PM
there are (and were) plenty of alternatives: kasich, clinton, bush, rubio, sanders, nolan ryan, my neighbor's new cat, an interesting leaf i saw outside once, etc.  maybe even ted cruz.

I don't agree that those are better options. Can you explain why you think they are?

nolan ryan was throwing 100mph fastballs in the 1970s.  and he's the all-time strikeout leader.  if that's not presidential material, i dunno what is.

more seriously, i'm not sure i could be much more clear: i think trump is divisive, abrasive, insulting, bullying, and ignorant.  i think his personality is awful, i think his policies are dogshit, and i think the nationalism he's trying to rile up is dangerous and disturbing.  i don't think the other candidates share all of those qualities.  kasich, for example, is even-keeled and smart.  i disagree with many of his policies, but they're at least debatable.  kasich wouldn't completely fracture the gop as trump is doing now.  he wouldn't be a daily embarrassment to our country.  foreign heads of state probably wouldn't fantasize about strangling him.

not literally all of them.

is that better?  was i precise enough for you?
You're improving, but I'd still like to see some literally illegal policies :D

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432350/if-i-say-do-it-theyre-going-do-it-thats-what-leadership-all-about
Quote
BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they’re illegal.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.

http://time.com/4244608/donald-trump-military-orders-illegal/
Quote
The targeting of terrorists’ families isn’t a close call. “You have to take out their families,” Trump said in December, referring to members of ISIS and other terrorist groups. “They say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

The logic of Trump’s call is clear: use the threat of death against terrorists’ families as a crowbar to change the terrorists’ behavior. So, ironically, is its legality: “Any order to specifically target civilian family members who are not directly participating in hostilities is simply a nonstarter for today’s military,” says Dunlap, who says he has no public opinion on any candidate. Such a command, he adds, would be a “classic example of an illegal order that could not and would not be obeyed.”

trump has since "clarified" that he won't ask the military to break the law.  i'm not sure why i should believe that.

i don't think he's backtracked on china, though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-alford/trumps-proposed-great-chinese-tariff-wall_b_9358376.html
Quote
Second, how would the tariff increase impact American exporters? Trump's tariff wall is undoubtedly illegal under the WTO rules. The rules were designed to make sure that countries keep their trade promises. Donald Trump's proposal is a blatant breach of our promise to keep tariffs low. All of our tariff rates are "bound," meaning we have committed by treaty not to increase beyond the bound rate. Every imported product has a bound tariff rate, and under GATT Article II, any tariff above that ceiling violates the WTO rules.

Trump's proposed tariff wall would break United States' promise to maintain its current tariff rates. China would have the right to bring an action before the WTO to challenge the 45 percent tariff increase. Just as the United States would undoubtedly win if China tried to do something similar to us, China would undoubtedly win if it challenged the Trump tariff wall. The WTO would demand that the United States keep its tariff promises, and authorize China to raise tariffs on United States' products coming into China equal to the harm the United States caused to China.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 14, 2016, 06:04:00 PM
more seriously, i'm not sure i could be much more clear: i think trump is divisive, abrasive, insulting, bullying, and ignorant.  i think his personality is awful, i think his policies are dogshit, and i think the nationalism he's trying to rile up is dangerous and disturbing.  i don't think the other candidates share all of those qualities.  kasich, for example, is even-keeled and smart.  i disagree with many of his policies, but they're at least debatable.  kasich wouldn't completely fracture the gop as trump is doing now.  he wouldn't be a daily embarrassment to our country.  foreign heads of state probably wouldn't fantasize about strangling him.

Well, that's a lot of opinions people clearly disagree with. Sure, you can have your own views, but I think a lot of what you've said is symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view - perhaps due to not fully understanding their perspective.

You want to hear my take on it? It's precisely because of the leftist culture of shaming that Trump is gaining traction - people see a constant increase in identity politics and silencing of dissenting views, and a public condoning of hate groups like BLM. They're up against people with an "it's fine if I do it" mentality, people who scream at and spit on Trump supporters for simply wearing a MAGA hat, and they're infuriated that nobody is condemning their actions. People can complain all they want about Trump "inciting violence", but at the end of day, it's not Trump supporters that are actually violent - it's their opponents. Yet whenever a 78 year old redneck punches a protester, it's Trump's supporters that are under the magnifying glass.

You can't blame Trump for starting it. He's not divisive; the country was already divided before he stepped into the ring. What he's doing is simply bringing attention to it and giving people a voice. It's true that Trump is reckless and many of his policies don't hold up, but I think it's just a gamble Trump supporters are willing to take - they see in Trump a catalyst of change in the cultural mind set, and really Trump is the only person who could make it happen - an iconoclast that can be abrasive and insulting while using it to his advantage. Nobody plays the media like Trump does, and it's fundamental to his success.

And what of his "dangerous" policies? No problem - the US government has plenty of checks in place to prevent the president from doing anything too extreme. It's probably not something Bernie supporters have realised yet. I think a Trump presidency and a Bernie presidency would look pretty similar in practice. Neither would sign TPP, neither would start any wars and neither are beholden to the rich elite and special interests. Trump wouldn't get his tariffs and mass deportation, and Bernie wouldn't give free shit to everyone. And I think that's just fine - it's certainly preferable to the cronyism of Hillary, or the theocracy of Cruz.

Also, don't worry about Trump being an embarrassment - America already is an embarrassment to the rest of the world.  :-*
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 14, 2016, 09:54:54 PM
Explain to me how Trump saying he does not condone violence at his rallys is false.

There's nothing wrong with telling people to punch someone who pushes and shoves them or rips up their property.

Saying these are "protesters" at Trump rallies is a misnomer. They're terrorists. They attack people.

Tell me this, Dave. If Trump is so violent and encouraging his supporters to be violent, why is it that Trump's rallies are being attacked almost every time but not once has a Trump supporter attacked a Bernie or Hillary rally? I mean certainly if this violent rhetoric is working, wouldn't attacks on their rallies be more commonplace than attacks on Trump's rallies?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 12:00:58 AM
Explain to me how Trump saying he does not condone violence at his rallys is false.

There's nothing wrong with telling people to punch someone who pushes and shoves them or rips up their property.

Saying these are "protesters" at Trump rallies is a misnomer. They're terrorists. They attack people.

Tell me this, Dave. If Trump is so violent and encouraging his supporters to be violent, why is it that Trump's rallies are being attacked almost every time but not once has a Trump supporter attacked a Bernie or Hillary rally? I mean certainly if this violent rhetoric is working, wouldn't attacks on their rallies be more commonplace than attacks on Trump's rallies?

Oh for the love of...

That is not my issue!  My issue is that he is saying he does NOT want his peiple to do that when talking to an interviewer but DOES when talking at his rally.  If he wanta to promote the use of force against force, I don't give a fuck, but be fucking consistent!


As for why they aren't attacking a Hillary or Bernie rally:
I suspect either its because they can't be arsed to do it(not enough motivation to go out of their way) or the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention.  After all, why would the other side want to make Trump a victim? 
I actually think its more the former.  Trump supporters are energetic and brave when surrounded by like minded people and when Trump says fight, they fight.  But outside of that, they're not going to do it.  They aren't going to risk anything when the safety of the crowd isn't on their side.

Meanwhile, Trump has gained such a polarized view that some are just angry enough to fight against the crowd.


Basically: Trump supporters are cowards. 

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 15, 2016, 12:10:12 AM
Or perhaps they're just regular Americans, while the "protesters" have already shown their true colours in Ferguson.

Only one of these groups has yet to set a town on fire, y'know.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 12:26:41 AM
Or perhaps they're just regular Americans, while the "protesters" have already shown their true colours in Ferguson.

Only one of these groups has yet to set a town on fire, y'know.
But Trump is being attacked at all his rallys, even the ones not near Ferguson.  Are you saying that one town is traveling/tailgating?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 15, 2016, 12:35:45 AM
Obviously there are Trump haters all over the US.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 01:10:26 AM
the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention. 

I can't do this anymore.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 02:45:56 AM
Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.

w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 05:29:45 AM
the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention. 

I can't do this anymore.
Oh please.  What, you think people aren't paid to go to rallys to show numbers?  That people aren't paid to post on social media sites?  This shit happens.  Of course you'll note I didn't think it likely.  Doesn't make it impossible though.


Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.

w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Yeah, I am.  Fuck being PC.  You trump supporters are cowards.  All of you are cowards.  You yell and scream when you're safe in a crowd or hiding behind the computer but where are you the rest of the time?  Do you complain about the filthy rapist mexicans to your coworkers?  Do you talk about how Muslims need to be banned to your friends?  Do you protest the media, loud and true?

Or have you been sitting on your fucking ass waiting for some big and powerful man's cock to suck?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 15, 2016, 05:37:08 AM
the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention. 

I can't do this anymore.
Oh please.  What, you think people aren't paid to go to rallys to show numbers?  That people aren't paid to post on social media sites?  This shit happens.  Of course you'll note I didn't think it likely.  Doesn't make it impossible though.


Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.

w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Yeah, I am.  Fuck being PC.  You trump supporters are cowards.  All of you are cowards.  You yell and scream when you're safe in a crowd or hiding behind the computer but where are you the rest of the time?  Do you complain about the filthy rapist mexicans to your coworkers?  Do you talk about how Muslims need to be banned to your friends?  Do you protest the media, loud and true?

Or have you been sitting on your fucking ass waiting for some big and powerful man's cock to suck?

what in God's name am I reading
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 05:41:33 AM
the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention. 

I can't do this anymore.
Oh please.  What, you think people aren't paid to go to rallys to show numbers?  That people aren't paid to post on social media sites?  This shit happens.  Of course you'll note I didn't think it likely.  Doesn't make it impossible though.


Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.

w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Yeah, I am.  Fuck being PC.  You trump supporters are cowards.  All of you are cowards.  You yell and scream when you're safe in a crowd or hiding behind the computer but where are you the rest of the time?  Do you complain about the filthy rapist mexicans to your coworkers?  Do you talk about how Muslims need to be banned to your friends?  Do you protest the media, loud and true?

Or have you been sitting on your fucking ass waiting for some big and powerful man's cock to suck?

what in God's name am I reading
My rant.  Wanna complain about it?  Tell me it makes no sense?  Wanna pick it apart word by word?  Go on!  Do it!  I fucking DARE you!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 15, 2016, 05:44:47 AM
That's almost Th*rk level.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 15, 2016, 05:56:19 AM
Suddenly this thread has become kind of epic.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 15, 2016, 07:15:35 AM
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11224468/donald-trump-women-ad
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 11:16:25 AM
Trump supporters are cowards for not attacking people? Well, that's an interesting way to look at it...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 11:23:53 AM
Are you okay, Dave? Are they giving you any strange pills or injections in Norway?

I don't think I am ok.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 11:48:44 AM
Trump supporters are cowards for not attacking people? Well, that's an interesting way to look at it...
Trump Supporters are cowards for only speaking out and fighting back when in Trump's presence as opposed to all the pussy, wimpy liberals who are willing to fight inside the lion's den and risk a punch to the face. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 11:53:38 AM
You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 12:22:08 PM
You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?
Well, that IS the way they want it.  Just not THEIR political preferences.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 12:22:24 PM
Trump stirs in people a visceral sense of pride and support for America. It's easy to see why one would punch someone whose trying to tear down the foundations that this country was built on.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 12:22:35 PM
Dave realized his anti-violence stance was complete garbage and 180'd so that he could argue people attacking Trump was a good thing lmao

Trump has stumped the shit out of Dave.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 12:26:19 PM
You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?
Well, that IS the way they want it.  Just not THEIR political preferences.

Source?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 12:53:31 PM
Trump stirs in people a visceral sense of pride and support for America. It's easy to see why one would punch someone whose trying to tear down the foundations that this country was built on.
He does!
I mean, it requires that he blame others for America's problems, but yeah, he does.  It's what Fascists do.

Dave realized his anti-violence stance was complete garbage and 180'd so that he could argue people attacking Trump was a good thing lmao

Trump has stumped the shit out of Dave.
Hm?
Anti-violence stance?

Look, I'm all for violence, I just wish he'd say so to interviewers.  He's saying it to his supporters but when asked by the press he's all "I don't condone violence at my rallys" which is BS.  He needs to man up and proclaim "If you see someone being a dick at my rally, you need to punch them, kick them, or kill them."
In fact, I've started reading Trump's speeches and interviews and already it makes me want to punch him.   

And yes, he HAS stumped me.  His speeches are a lot of words and self-praise but not much on substance.  Which is fine.  Again, that's what America prides itself on: Self Praise and lack of substance.


You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?
Well, that IS the way they want it.  Just not THEIR political preferences.

Source?
Go listen to a rally.  That's all the source I need.  Just listen to the crowd.  Listen to how they KNOW they're right and everyone else is wrong.  How those who oppose them need to be stopped.  There is no compromise.  There is no peace.  There is only war.


Look, it's --Well its the way it must be.  I mean, I'm great.  I'm a great guy.  Very likable, everyone thinks so.  Just ask.  Ask my family and they'll tell you, they will, that I'm a great guy.  But when I see people, and I don't mean people like you, I mean the worst, the absolute worst people, standing around, chanting and really, it's more like a religion isn't it?  You can't just have a group of people praise someone and not, you know, not think they're praying too.  Anyway, when I see them chanting and just being so angry about walls and Muslims and by the way, Muslims are great people.  I love Muslims.  Truely, I do.  Ask anyone.  But when you see them chanting about it and wanting to build walls and ban people, you just gotta ask yourself, how did we get here?  I'll tell you how, we never win.  We're always losing.  The people we have, up there, in the media and the press.  I love the press, by the way.  Love them.  But they've got people, and they're bad people.  Not the best and trust me, I know the best.  Believe me, I know people you'd never even heard of who are excellent people.  Very loving, very caring, very easy to get along with.  I get along with them.  So I ask myself, why can't we make America great Together?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 15, 2016, 04:09:23 PM
Republican National Committee

RULE 40

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8 ) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8 ) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.


Only Cruz and Trump thus qualify as candidates for the nomination: the others (Carson, Kasich, Rubio) can't even enter the contest. And the rules will not be changed in the middle of the convention: Kasich and Rubio have no viable path to the election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 04:29:50 PM
Look, I'm all for violence

Yikes
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 04:33:43 PM
Look, I'm all for violence

Yikes
What?  If Trump can be all for violence, why not me?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 05:08:57 PM
Look, I'm all for violence

Yikes
What?  If Trump can be all for violence, why not me?

I'll let you think about it
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 05:14:21 PM
Dave is beginning to accept the ideals of Trumpism. Now, if only we can get him to listen to what Trump stands for rather than listening to what people say Trump stands for.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 05:58:13 PM
Dave is beginning to accept the ideals of Trumpism. Now, if only we can get him to listen to what Trump stands for rather than listening to what people say Trump stands for.

Trump stands for making America great.
He intends to do this by attacking the econmic enemies of America: Illegals, Mexico, and China.
He intnds to defeat terrorism by becoming a terroist.
He'll get "the best people.  People you've never even heard of."

Not sure what else.  His speeches and interviews are full of self praise and lack of substance.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 06:08:28 PM
So, in your mind, Dave, you think that when someone asks Trump what he plans to do for the economy, he answers something along the lines of, "I plan to attack illegals, Mexicans, and China."

Is this correct?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 06:21:08 PM
So, in your mind, Dave, you think that when someone asks Trump what he plans to do for the economy, he answers something along the lines of, "I plan to attack illegals, Mexicans, and China."

Is this correct?
Attack in the sense of their impact on America, not bombs or punches. (Ie. Economically for China, legally for Illegals, etc..)

Deport Illegals.
Raise Tarifs to hurt China's manufacturing export sector
Destroy NAFTA

For example:
He would call up the head of Ford and say congratulations on the new Factory in Mexico but anything that comes to the US is now taxed 30% instantly.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 06:28:58 PM
Destroy globalism.

Both Rupert Murdoch and George Soros hate Trump. That's good enough for me.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 06:51:59 PM
Deport Illegals.

They are by definition breaking the law. ILLEGALS. What do you suggest we do with law breakers?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 06:55:58 PM
Deport Illegals.

They are by definition breaking the law. ILLEGALS. What do you suggest we do with law breakers?
Oh I'm all for that one.
In fact, I would hope he suspends a few constitutional amendments to make finding them easier.  That 4th Amendment is annoying when you wanna just bust down a door and demand papers.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 07:22:35 PM
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 07:32:51 PM
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.

What's the point?  Trump could murder someone on 5th ave and you'd still vote for him.  No argument, no matter how valid, would win in this thread.  So I'm just going to keep being lazy and regurgitate headlines. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 09:24:24 PM
Question:
When Trump sets high tariffs from China and removes NAFTA, what will the short and long term effects of prices to consumers be?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 11:04:06 PM
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.

What's the point?  Trump could murder someone on 5th ave and you'd still vote for him.  No argument, no matter how valid, would win in this thread.  So I'm just going to keep being lazy and regurgitate headlines.

I'm disappointed in you, Dave.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 11:08:41 PM
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.

What's the point?  Trump could murder someone on 5th ave and you'd still vote for him.  No argument, no matter how valid, would win in this thread.  So I'm just going to keep being lazy and regurgitate headlines.

I'm disappointed in you, Dave.
What can I say?  The bombardment has worn me down.  Besides, I left America for several good reasons.  I'm quite Anti-America these days.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 11:14:28 PM
What can I say?  The bombardment has worn me down.  Besides, I left America for several good reasons.  I'm quite Anti-America these days.

Who would have guessed living in the most xenophobic country on the planet would cause you to hate other countries.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 11:26:40 PM
What can I say?  The bombardment has worn me down.  Besides, I left America for several good reasons.  I'm quite Anti-America these days.

Who would have guessed living in the most xenophobic country on the planet would cause you to hate other countries.
Well, if you hate America, you should leave.  That's what the internet always told me.
So I did.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 06:29:53 AM
Donald Trump is the front person for the Knights Templar and the Orange Order (the very reason behind his orange hair and spray tan).

I believe that a deal was struck with the Ancient Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and the Jesuit Order well before the actual electoral process, to have Trump prepare the way for someone else (the very reason for his bizarre behaviour and statements) and that, so far, nobody has yet betrayed this alliance.

Now, does everybody here agree with these numbers:

(http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/03/Delegate-Table-for-Redstate-after-Super-Tuesday-Florida.jpg)

I have updated the list
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 16, 2016, 10:50:47 AM
Donald Trump is the front person for the Knights Templar and the Orange Order (the very reason behind his orange hair and spray tan).

I believe that a deal was struck with the Ancient Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and the Jesuit Order well before the actual electoral process, to have Trump prepare the way for someone else (the very reason for his bizarre behaviour and statements) and that, so far, nobody has yet betrayed this alliance.
I'm just curious what the Livonian Order and the Latin Empire have to say about this. I mean, we can't have a proper crusade without those guys, right?

Meanwhile, among the (vaguely) sane: RIP Rubio, I guess I have to cling to Kasich now. :(
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 16, 2016, 11:25:56 AM
Trump wins every state with the exception of Ohio.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPFz_EPVAAAnrK2.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
(http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/03/DownGoesTrump-620x433.jpg)

SexWarrior... take a look at some of the hand gestures/signals made by Trump during many of his interviews, only an expert in the history of secret societies (such as yourself) could have missed out on something like this.


Presumably Trump would like to have his ideas translated into laws/regulations passed by the Congress: and here is his big problem.

If Trump makes to the final, the Democrats will win (not only the White House) both the Senate and the House with a clear majority (all they have to do is run ads featuring Trump's own words, as they have begun to do already).

He won't be able to get anything passed in the House, not to mention the Senate: no wall, no trade deals, nothing at all.


Again, the question I posed a long time ago: why would the GOP put up with Trump's excentric behaviour from the outset, when they could have stopped him in his tracks? Why would they want to lose the majority in both the House and Senate and at the same time be represented in the White House by a person which does not share conservative values?

Please refrain from throwing about users' personal information without permission. ~Snupes
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2016, 11:59:58 AM
(http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/03/DownGoesTrump-620x433.jpg)
SexWarrior... take a look at some of the hand gestures/signals made by Trump during many of his interviews, only an expert in the history of secret societies (such as yourself) could have missed out on something like this.


Presumably Trump would like to have his ideas translated into laws/regulations passed by the Congress: and here is his big problem.

If Trump makes to the final, the Democrats will win (not only the White House) both the Senate and the House with a clear majority (all they have to do is run ads featuring Trump's own words, as they have begun to do already).

He won't be able to get anything passed in the House, not to mention the Senate: no wall, no trade deals, nothing at all.


Again, the question I posed a long time ago: why would the GOP put up with Trump's excentric behaviour from the outset, when they could have stopped him in his tracks? Why would they want to lose the majority in both the House and Senate and at the same time be represented in the White House by a person which does not share conservative values?
They haven't been able to stop him despite trying.  And if they pull him, it'll do more damage than not.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 12:04:45 PM
They haven't been able to stop him despite trying.  And if they pull him, it'll do more damage than not.

Then, contrary to our friend SexWarrior's ramblings on the influence of secret societies, what you are saying is that Trump has a secret agenda, having been able to fool the entire GOP leadership and run an INDEPENDENT bid for the White House, while posing as a Republican.

Rather, it makes more sense to draw another conclusion: the GOP is using Trump to reach some very specific goals, before they get rid of his candidacy at the convention.

Please refrain from throwing about users' personal information without permission. ~Snupes
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 12:09:59 PM
ITT: sandokhan sees Dave overtaking his throne as the craziest person on FES, attempts to retake it
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 16, 2016, 02:25:58 PM
If Trump makes to the final, the Democrats will win (not only the White House) both the Senate and the House with a clear majority (all they have to do is run ads featuring Trump's own words, as they have begun to do already).

He won't be able to get anything passed in the House, not to mention the Senate: no wall, no trade deals, nothing at all
Do you have any evidence to support your claims, or are you just going to, quite literally, focus on hand-waving?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 02:58:03 PM
Sure.

The first argument involves the gender gap.

Public Policy Polling found in late February that 51 percent of male GOP voters favored Trump, compared with just 39 percent of female Republicans: this was way before the new anti-Trump ads featuring his quotes.

Trump's gender gap would likely grow much wider in a general election.

Recently (last week in fact) ABC News published a poll that puts Clinton up 21 points among women over Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

This, however, would be a huge problem for Trump:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699

Trump would have to win 70 percent of white men voting in November to win, more than any Republican has won, even in landslide victories.

Mitt Romney was badly defeated among women voters. Trump would do even worse.

Barack Obama won women voters by 12 points over Romney in what Gallup called the largest gender gap in a presidential election since 1952. Women were the majority of voters that year, outnumbering men by a 55-45 margin, according to the Center for American Progress.


The second argument should be pretty clear: Trump is wildly unpopular with Republican voters.

As of today, total votes cast so far:

TRUMP:  6,492,202

EVERYONE ELSE:  11,378,071


Exactly at this point in the voting process, four years ago we had:

ROMNEY:   6,018,802

EVERYONE ELSE:   5,365,337

DONALD TRUMP IS DISLIKED ALMOST 2:1 OVER ALL OF HIS RIVALS.


As if this wasn't enough, here is a very important third reason why Trump will lose the general election, the white collar vote:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/why-donald-trump-cant-win-the-white-house/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 03:07:31 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/16/donald-trump-will-not-participate-in-fox-news-upcoming-gop-debate/

Quote
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said during a telephone interview on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning that he will not participate in the upcoming Fox News GOP debate.

[...]

Trump said that instead of participating in Monday’s debate in Salt Lake City, he will deliver a “major speech” at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

This is so fucking funny. Leaving Fox with the ratings suicide of Cruz vs. Kasich, while also improving his favourability with pro-Israel people. And what is that debate going to be about? Cruz will just attack Kasich on being an asylum supporter because he has nobody else to speak to. He's doing the heavy lifting for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 16, 2016, 03:40:19 PM
more seriously, i'm not sure i could be much more clear: i think trump is divisive, abrasive, insulting, bullying, and ignorant.  i think his personality is awful, i think his policies are dogshit, and i think the nationalism he's trying to rile up is dangerous and disturbing.  i don't think the other candidates share all of those qualities.  kasich, for example, is even-keeled and smart.  i disagree with many of his policies, but they're at least debatable.  kasich wouldn't completely fracture the gop as trump is doing now.  he wouldn't be a daily embarrassment to our country.  foreign heads of state probably wouldn't fantasize about strangling him.

Well, that's a lot of opinions people clearly disagree with. Sure, you can have your own views, but I think a lot of what you've said is symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view - perhaps due to not fully understanding their perspective.

You want to hear my take on it? It's precisely because of the leftist culture of shaming that Trump is gaining traction - people see a constant increase in identity politics and silencing of dissenting views, and a public condoning of hate groups like BLM.

you asked me why i would prefer any of the other candidates, and i answered.  perhaps i do not fully understand your perspective, but i genuinely don't understand how stating my opinion of trump is "symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view."  can you elaborate?

even if my response was unsolicited and incredibly inflammatory/insulting, how would that silence any of your dissenting views? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 04:00:13 PM
Recently (last week in fact) ABC News published a poll that puts Clinton up 21 points among women over Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

Early polls don't mean anything. Reagan/Carter had Carter ahead by 20 points at the same stage of the election.

Quote
The second argument should be pretty clear: Trump is wildly unpopular with Republican voters.

Likewise, you can't know how that will affect the general election. Are republican voters not going to vote for Trump if he is the nominee?

Also, republicans alone can't decide an election. They don't turn blue states to red, outside factors do - such as the large independent and democrat turnout Trump is getting. If it were a simple democrat vs. republican match, democrats will win every time.

People also conveniently forget about how the electoral college works whenever demographics are involved. They go on about the Latino vote while also not considering that Latinos are concentrated in states that are securely blue or red. The contested states Trump needs to win are primarily white, the demographic he does best with.

you asked me why i would prefer any of the other candidates, and i answered.  perhaps i do not fully understand your perspective, but i genuinely don't understand how stating my opinion of trump is "symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view."  can you elaborate?

even if my response was unsolicited and incredibly inflammatory/insulting, how would that silence any of your dissenting views?

I wasn't referring to your opinion, I was referring to some of your earlier posts in this thread. And I'm not trying to say you are as bad as the general leftist mindset - I'm sorry if I led you to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
They haven't been able to stop him despite trying.  And if they pull him, it'll do more damage than not.

Then, contrary to our friend SexWarrior's ramblings on the influence of secret societies, what you are saying is that Trump has a secret agenda, having been able to fool the entire GOP leadership and run an INDEPENDENT bid for the White House, while posing as a Republican.

Rather, it makes more sense to draw another conclusion: the GOP is using Trump to reach some very specific goals, before they get rid of his candidacy at the convention.

Please refrain from throwing about users' personal information without permission. ~Snupes

Problem 1: if he wins then removing him is going to look bad.
Problem 2: If the GOP were using him to get someone else elected, why would they not just promote their guy and "discourage" competition?  Also, Trump isn't paving anything, he's taking eveything. 
Problem 3: The only person left is Cruz and if they wanted him, they wouldn't need Trump to get attention nor would it be advantageous.


ITT: sandokhan sees Dave overtaking his throne as the craziest person on FES, attempts to retake it
I'm not crazy.  I really am a member of the Illuminati.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 04:15:11 PM
Please refrain from throwing about users' personal information without permission. ~Snupes

Then, those users should obey the rules listed elsewhere.


Problem 3: The only person left is Cruz and if they wanted him, they wouldn't need Trump to get attention nor would it be advantageous.

Read my messages again.

There are two basic reasons why they needed the Trump circus before the convention itself.


Early polls don't mean anything. Reagan/Carter had Carter ahead by 20 points at the same stage of the election.

Your analogy is weak for several important reasons:

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2016/03/15/1980-donald-trump-ronald-reagan/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 04:23:16 PM
Your analogy is weak for several important reasons:

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2016/03/15/1980-donald-trump-ronald-reagan/

I used it as an example, not an analogy. Early polls don't mean anything.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2016, 04:29:03 PM
Read my messages again.

There are two basic reasons why they needed the Trump circus before the convention itself.

Which one?  I don't see it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 16, 2016, 05:25:40 PM
I wasn't referring to your opinion, I was referring to some of your earlier posts in this thread. And I'm not trying to say you are as bad as the general leftist mindset - I'm sorry if I led you to believe otherwise.

oh, no apology necessary, i didn't take you to be attacking me personally.  i'm just generally skeptical of the notion that the the right's access to free speech is being impinged on by the left's access to free speech.  more than anything, i just don't agree that the left has a monopoly on polemical rhetoric, as much as i might agree with you that such rhetoric is counterproductive.  but that's another topic altogether i guess.  more to the point, i'm also skeptical that trump represents any kind of salvation from political correctness and the like.  this is part of what i think makes him so divisive, that even his own party believes that his rhetoric is actually dangerous.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 05:51:04 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/media/donald-trump-republican-debate-fox/

Debate cancelled lol
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2016, 06:12:30 PM
I want to see all the peaceful Trump supporters vs the peaceful liberals.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3495162/Trump-warns-riots-not-handed-Republican-nomination-Kasich-victory-Ohio-virtually-guarantees-race-convention.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 16, 2016, 10:25:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7CBp8lQ6ro

<Snupes> Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, Trump responded, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things."
<Snupes> Oh my god, this guy
<Snupes> "I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things." is absolutely my new favourite quote from him.
<Blanko> Well it's true
<Blanko> His IQ is 156
<Foxbox> He has said a lot of things
<Snupes> So many things
<Snupes> With that good brain of his
<Snupes> Foxbox: How is your brain?
<Franklin> Good brain makes the best words
<Snupes> Beautiful
<Snupes> YOu should run for president
<Saddam> I actually tried looking this IQ claim up
<Franklin> Only Trump and high schoolers think they're smart enough to navigate foreign policy by them self.
<Saddam> I'm seeing a lot of message boards and anonymous people saying his IQ is 156
<Foxbox> Snupes: It's broken
<Saddam> http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/08/donald-trump-is-a-genius-but-thats-just-his-iq-3038790.html
<Saddam> This appears to be the source of it
<Saddam> http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2015/08/donald-trump-is-genius-but-thats-just.html
<Saddam> this, actually
<Anastas> Both excellent sources
<Snupes> Based on my estimates I did scientifically, I estimate I have an IQ of roughly ~4,324,052,142
<Foxbox> That is a good IQ
<Snupes> (link)
<Snupes> It's not quite as funny actually hearing that amazing quote coming out of his mouth, but still great
<Snupes> "No way I don't believe someone wrote about Osama Bin Laden before the World Trade Center came down"
<Snupes> Yeah man that Osama, he was a big ol' nobody before that
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 16, 2016, 11:11:35 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/media/donald-trump-republican-debate-fox/

Debate cancelled lol

They cancelled the debate after Kasich pulled out in addition to Trump. Without Trump, Kasich probably got scared he might actually have to answer questions during the debate and say something other than "oh golly gee."

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Снупс on March 16, 2016, 11:13:40 PM
Vaguely related to "I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI

I find analyses of Trump's speech fascinating.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 16, 2016, 11:17:36 PM
"The Pope says Donald Trump is not a nice person. Donald Trump is a very nice person. "

-Donald Trump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 17, 2016, 06:49:36 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/anti-trump-groups-threaten-largest-civil-disobedience-action-of-the-century/

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/16/cruz-no-surprise-trump-is-trying-to-stir-up-riots-challenges-him-to-debate-in-dc/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 17, 2016, 09:13:10 AM
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2016/03/what_s_hiding_in_donald_trump_s_tax_return.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2016, 02:29:21 PM
I really don't care about Trump's tax return.  It's a distraction from the actual issues at hand.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2016, 04:40:45 PM
I really don't care about Trump's tax return.  It's a distraction from the actual issues at hand.

Funny thing is, he's said he was proud of his assets and wealth.  He had to present it when he ran.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 17, 2016, 05:04:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MfyPBZj.jpg)

BLM is promising to loot and riot if God-Emperor Trump becomes POTUS. I'll drench the streets with their blood.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2016, 05:10:53 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MfyPBZj.jpg)

BLM is promising to loot and riot if God-Emperor Trump becomes POTUS. I'll drench the streets with their blood.
So no matter what, there will be riots.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 17, 2016, 05:18:29 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MfyPBZj.jpg)

BLM is promising to loot and riot if God-Emperor Trump becomes POTUS. I'll drench the streets with their blood.
So no matter what, there will be riots.

Enjoy.

When these roaches scurry into the light I'll be able to personally reduce our welfare budget one bug at a time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 17, 2016, 05:26:20 PM
When these roaches scurry into the light I'll be able to personally reduce our welfare budget one bug at a time.

The Liberals will be the ones without guns. FYI.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2016, 06:22:21 PM
When these roaches scurry into the light I'll be able to personally reduce our welfare budget one bug at a time.

The Liberals will be the ones without guns. FYI.
Yeah but we got the hackers on our side. :p
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 18, 2016, 12:13:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrqqQAfenUo
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 19, 2016, 12:59:36 AM
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153370698696121

Trumpism
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: nametaken on March 19, 2016, 02:36:06 AM
Sorry people, not that it has ever mattered, but it really is all fools gold this time around.

Only two (Deseil (Paper) 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme)) (Unleaded (Plastic) 2 (http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/meet-deez-nuts--year-old-northwest-iowan-running-for/article_97e6d5e3-b924-5eac-8cbd-3097e09df305.html)) candidates really matter. Choose responsibly.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 20, 2016, 11:02:19 AM
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/01/18-trump-republican-nominee-independent-bid-wallach (it examines the possibility of not one, but two independent bids for the presidency at the same time)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2016, 09:19:06 AM
https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg

Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 21, 2016, 02:06:28 PM
https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg

Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.

I don't understand the troll.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2016, 02:10:47 PM
https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg

Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.

I don't understand the troll.
Notice how be sounds.  How he speaks.

He's normal.  He speaks clearly and average.  He doesn't self promote as much and isn't outrageous in what he says. 
The Trump of today is crazy by comparison.  That's why I think he's trolling.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 21, 2016, 04:11:38 PM
https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg

Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.

I don't understand the troll.
Notice how be sounds.  How he speaks.

He's normal.  He speaks clearly and average.  He doesn't self promote as much and isn't outrageous in what he says. 
The Trump of today is crazy by comparison.  That's why I think he's trolling.

Don't mistake someone's awareness and modification of a public persona as a troll.  It is fairly common and not necessarily a sign of dishonesty.  It could very easily be an honest appeal to his perceived voter base.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 21, 2016, 09:26:22 PM
You know its funny, I thought Levee was shitting up my thread, but it was actually Lord "I'm okay with violence" Dave all along.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 02:24:11 AM
You know its funny, I thought Levee was shitting up my thread, but it was actually Lord "I'm okay with violence" Dave all along.
I'm going to make this thread great again.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 22, 2016, 06:43:13 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 07:55:03 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)

ISIS will be pleased.  So am I, actually.  We need less interferance.  Thats how we stop ISIS attacks against us.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 22, 2016, 08:47:23 AM
Make American great again.

Nato is an anachronism.

Let's deal with the 19 trillion debt.

No more bad trade deals.

Rebuild our infrastructure.

Improve relations with Russia.


Why would Trump venture to make such statements, knowing full well that they could never be fulfilled?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 22, 2016, 08:51:33 AM
Don't underestimate God-Emperor Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
Make American great again.

Nato is an anachronism.

Let's deal with the 19 trillion debt.

No more bad trade deals.

Rebuild our infrastructure.

Improve relations with Russia.


Why would Trump venture to make such statements, knowing full well that they could never be fulfilled?
The first is too vague to matter
The second is an opinion
The rest can be dealt with.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 22, 2016, 12:52:45 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)

ISIS will be pleased.  So am I, actually.  We need less interferance.  Thats how we stop ISIS attacks against us.

Interventionism is what made ISIS in the first place. More interventionism is just going to get you more flavors of ISIS.

I can't wait for Trump to actually stop arming the 'moderate' rebels in Syria. Maybe for once we can actually stabilize the region instead of obliterating anything that resembles a government.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 01:48:16 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)

ISIS will be pleased.  So am I, actually.  We need less interferance.  Thats how we stop ISIS attacks against us.

Interventionism is what made ISIS in the first place. More interventionism is just going to get you more flavors of ISIS.

I can't wait for Trump to actually stop arming the 'moderate' rebels in Syria. Maybe for once we can actually stabilize the region instead of obliterating anything that resembles a government.
Agreed.  Wonder how Israel feels...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 22, 2016, 01:59:36 PM
Who cares?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 04:19:56 PM
Who cares?
Alot of people.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 23, 2016, 01:05:46 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Im2Hai0.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 23, 2016, 05:52:27 AM
Quote
06:45 < Rushy> http://imgur.com/pvTZ9Fu
This is my favourite thing ever.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 24, 2016, 11:35:17 AM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-insiders-nominee-wont-be-limited-to-winner-of-8-states/article/2586357

Party officials and knowledgeable sources have confirmed over the past few days that Rule 40(b) doesn't exist for the purposes of the upcoming convention.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2016, 08:29:52 PM
It won't really matter in the end. Cruz is out of caucus states he can scam and Kasich barely won his home state. All of the remaining states are primaries and Trump is estimated to garner about 1300 delegates by July.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 24, 2016, 08:58:44 PM
The best case scenario for Trump is as follows: right before June 7, he will be some 100 delegates short, having to rely on winning in California to make up the difference.

He will have to release his tax returns very soon, and also he will have to testify in the university scam cases, not to mention that he will hit a roadblock at the convention.

Trump is still trying to run as an independent, while using the Republican party as a platform: this means that the GOP had this planned from the very start, a sure sign that they are not about to lose the general election to the Democrats, not to mention the House and Senate elections, by supporting a nominee who will have a hard time getting the needed Hispanic, Black and Catholic votes on his side; something else must be going on.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2016, 11:08:45 PM
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 24, 2016, 11:55:30 PM
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

What actually happened is that Ford's CEO dismissed Trump's hyperbolic claims of the company "leaving" America while also reaffirming that their plans for expanding their market internationally would continue.  The website you linked dishonestly quote-mined him to imply that his "here to stay" line was somehow indicating he was capitulating to Trump.  Watching the interview leaves no doubt that that isn't true:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000503937
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 25, 2016, 02:08:34 AM
He is maintaining a defensive position and will completely pull back once Trump is president.

Also, this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnwlPAZjpM
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 25, 2016, 02:24:09 AM
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

i thought we went over this already.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 25, 2016, 02:05:09 PM
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

i thought we went over this already.

They claim we should stop talking about it because "countries are already bringing them back" and then go on to point out higher retail jobs than manufacturing jobs in the US. Yes, everyone even taking cursory glances at the stock exchange or US economy papers knows the service industries (including retail) are dominating and rising in the US. This is exactly what is bad. Service industries are some of the least paying jobs available and are the leading cause of stagnant wages. Manufacturing is a skilled labor; services are not.

Companies are like water. They will go through the easiest path available. If that path is moving to Mexico, they will, if that path is moving to China, they will. If that path is moving their shit back to the US because they can't compete, they will. So this article "guys, guys, stop talking about it!!!" is the epitome of idiocy. Our national participation rate is the lowest its been in decades and we're moving all of the skilled labor overseas. At this rate China will be an economic powerhouse and the US will continue to stagnate or recede.

As a country, the US should only have free trade with countries that have close to or equal economies and similar standards of living. Having free trade with Canada and Europe would be fine, but companies too easily take advantage of Mexicans and Chinese because they're poor and have medieval labor laws.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 26, 2016, 01:52:51 AM
They claim we should stop talking about it because "countries are already bringing them back" and then go on to point out higher retail jobs than manufacturing jobs in the US.

this is a painfully inaccurate description of their argument.  what they actually say is, "Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago."

trump's position is exactly as asinine as decrying the loss of agriculture jobs in america and talking about how he's going to do policies x, y, and z to bring farm jobs back to america.  it really wouldn't matter what his specific proposal is, and it wouldn't matter if farm jobs were the best and most high-paying jobs ever: machines do those jobs now, and that's the end of that.  farm jobs are never going to supplant manufacturing or service jobs in america ever again.  that's not how our economy works anymore.  likewise, manufacturing isn't going to suddenly displace an industry in which 85% of americans work.

(http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/employment/Services-and-Manufacturing-and-growth-adjusted-for-workforce-population-growth-since-1948.gif)

Service industries are some of the least paying jobs available and are the leading cause of stagnant wages. Manufacturing is a skilled labor; services are not.

this is absolute nonsense and just plain wrong.  the service industry comprises the overwhelming majority of jobs in america, and, as you can see from the graph above, wage stagnation started much later than growth in the service industry.

the service industry is huge, and less than 20% of those jobs are in retail. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm)  transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, health care and social assistance, legal services, repair services, accounting and bookkeeping services, architectural and engineering services, management and technical consulting services, scientific research and development services, advertising, office administrative services, motion picture and sound recording industries, telecommunications, everything having to do with the internet; these are all hugely important skilled labor jobs in the service industry, and that's just to name a few.

Companies are like water. They will go through the easiest path available. If that path is moving to Mexico, they will, if that path is moving to China, they will. If that path is moving their shit back to the US because they can't compete, they will. So this article "guys, guys, stop talking about it!!!" is the epitome of idiocy.

after you actually read the article, please tell me more about labor costs, because you're making my point for me.  if firms prefer cheap labor to expensive labor, then they probably really highly prefer automated mechanical labor to human labor, right?  isn't that the most cost effective form of labor?  isn't that kind of, maybe, exactly the 'idiotic' point that 538 is making?

by the way, you know what's so great about service industry jobs over manufacturing jobs?  they can't be outsourced to foreign workers.  what you're saying about the service industry is just plain wrong.  the desire to retool our economy to make it more like it was in the first half of the 20th century is totally beyond the pale.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14822.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/growth-of-us-services-economy-2014-9
http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2095734&seqNum=3
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 26, 2016, 03:20:04 AM
this is a painfully inaccurate description of their argument.  what they actually say is, "Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago."

trump's position is exactly as asinine as decrying the loss of agriculture jobs in america and talking about how he's going to do policies x, y, and z to bring farm jobs back to america.  it really wouldn't matter what his specific proposal is, and it wouldn't matter if farm jobs were the best and most high-paying jobs ever: machines do those jobs now, and that's the end of that.  farm jobs are never going to supplant manufacturing or service jobs in america ever again.  that's not how our economy works anymore.  likewise, manufacturing isn't going to suddenly displace an industry in which 85% of americans work.

How many jobs are or are not done by machines is irrelevant. I would rather the work being done by machines in America than Mexicans or Chinese. At least we can be sure the machines aren't subject to copious human rights violations.

this is absolute nonsense and just plain wrong.  the service industry comprises the overwhelming majority of jobs in america, and, as you can see from the graph above, wage stagnation started much later than growth in the service industry.

the service industry is huge, and less than 20% of those jobs are in retail. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm)  transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, health care and social assistance, legal services, repair services, accounting and bookkeeping services, architectural and engineering services, management and technical consulting services, scientific research and development services, advertising, office administrative services, motion picture and sound recording industries, telecommunications, everything having to do with the internet; these are all hugely important skilled labor jobs in the service industry, and that's just to name a few.

Then I should have said the vast majority of services is unskilled labor, then. A great deal of it could even be done without a bachelor's degree (and the fact that many people think the opposite is true is why degrees are so worthless now).


after you actually read the article, please tell me more about labor costs, because you're making my point for me.  if firms prefer cheap labor to expensive labor, then they probably really highly prefer automated mechanical labor to human labor, right?  isn't that the most cost effective form of labor?  isn't that kind of, maybe, exactly the 'idiotic' point that 538 is making?

The point I'm making is that a company moving its manufacturing to Mexico and China is in fact moving a non-zero amount of jobs. If a company makes its parts using machines, it better damn well be doing it in the United States. We're not exactly running out of room here.

What do you think will happen once China's economy gets done playing a game a catchup to ours? We're going to get economically destroyed in a few decades and we'll be stuck with a population almost entirely consisting of a service industry. The very worse case scenario is that results in a very bad case of brain drain and the best case is that we go into Cold War mk2 with China except we'll be holding the short end of the stick.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 26, 2016, 02:23:10 PM
On the notion of the wimminz:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/us/politics/donald-trump.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 27, 2016, 04:39:16 PM
How many jobs are or are not done by machines is irrelevant. I would rather the work being done by machines in America than Mexicans or Chinese. At least we can be sure the machines aren't subject to copious human rights violations.

The point I'm making is that a company moving its manufacturing to Mexico and China is in fact moving a non-zero amount of jobs. If a company makes its parts using machines, it better damn well be doing it in the United States. We're not exactly running out of room here.

automated labor is super relevant.  i'm saying that bringing lost manufacturing back to america is a fool's errand since it won't actually produce a significant amount of jobs.  it will bring mostly robots and some additional output.  since manufacturing output is already at record levels, we clearly don't need the output.  or, more accurately, we don't need it so badly that we should dramatically raise the prices on consumer goods with a bunch of tariffs and import taxes.

Then I should have said the vast majority of services is unskilled labor, then. A great deal of it could even be done without a bachelor's degree (and the fact that many people think the opposite is true is why degrees are so worthless now).

really?  what about electricians, plumbers, architects, bankers, brokers, pilots, truckers, utilities workers, videographers, every job related to computers/the internet, publishers, writers, the insurance industry, real estate managers, accountants/bookkeepers, engineers of every kind, scientific researchers, business managers, business owners, teachers, medical technicians, nurses, paralegals, dentists, therapists, entertainers, maintenance workers...those are just the ones i can think of off the top of my head.  you're underestimating how vast the service sector is.

not all of those jobs require a college degree (dunno why that matters since i'm pretty sure most manufacturing jobs don't either), but they're all skilled labor positions.  what you're saying is the opposite of the truth.  we're a service economy because we have so many educated and skilled workers who can fill so many different economy niches.  those workers don't like working in factories or farms.

What do you think will happen once China's economy gets done playing a game a catchup to ours? We're going to get economically destroyed in a few decades and we'll be stuck with a population almost entirely consisting of a service industry. The very worse case scenario is that results in a very bad case of brain drain and the best case is that we go into Cold War mk2 with China except we'll be holding the short end of the stick.

do you have any evidence to support any of the claims you make?  this is all utter nonsense.  that's not how any of this works.  either way, crushing our economy under the weight of a bunch of idiotic protectionism (and heralded by the gop...i'm just so utterly confused about what's happening in america right now).  how are tax hikes and increasing prices on consumer goods going to save us from china?  are you people listening to yourselves?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/08/china-is-killing-us-and-other-populist-myths/
Quote
When it comes to GDP per capita, the World Bank puts the United States at $54,629 and China at $7,590. (China’s income inequality gap, which seems to matter to people, is wider than the United States’s.) Although the nearly eight years of progressive economics creeping into U.S. policy has degraded economic freedom, the World Economic Forum still ranks the U.S. economy as the third most competitive in the world. China is 28th. I could dig up another 100 metrics of wealth and well-being and they would all say the same exact thing. So, yeah, they’re not “killing us” in any measurable way.

Now, I can explain this to my increasingly shrinking pool of protectionist friends—show them some nifty graphs, maybe—but they won’t care. They’ll tell me we don’t make anything anymore! even if U.S. manufacturing output has quadrupled since 1990. They’ll tell me we’re losing, even though the United States is becoming more competitive in manufacturing through automation and other efficiencies, creating advanced technology products with higher pay. The average American worker is responsible for nearly six times the output of the average Chinese worker. Why would we want to “bring back” an unproductive economy that saps jobs, I’ll ask?  It’s all BS, they’ll say.

They’ll tell me the working class is shrinking, but forget that it’s getting richer. Mark Perry at AEI has done great work on dispelling the myth that the middle class is losing ground. As Thomas Sowell points out today, 51 percent of American families will be in the top 10 percent of income earners at some point during their lifetime. Our wages haven’t gone up, says every politician. Yet if we consider what Americans can buy with a dollar, inflation, and how much employers pay in benefits, this isn’t exactly true for most people. They don’t care.

https://hbr.org/2012/03/shattering-the-myths-about-us-trade-policy
Quote
Manufacturing’s contribution to employment in the U.S. has fallen steadily for over half a century, long before America started running trade deficits. The rate of decline from 2000 to 2010—about 0.4 percentage points a year—was the same per year as during the previous 40 years. Moreover, the United States isn’t unique: Data going back to 1973 show that all industrialized countries, even those with large trade surpluses such as Germany and the Netherlands, have reported a similar trend. (See the exhibit “Manufacturing Employment Has Fallen Steadily and Globally.”)

Many people blame trade for the decline in America’s employment in manufacturing, but our research shows that the drivers of the trend in the U.S. are primarily a combination of two other factors: increasing productivity growth in American manufacturing and a shift in demand away from goods toward services.

America’s deindustrialization is “made in America,” so to speak, and it results primarily from Americans’ spending decisions. While productivity growth has led to lower prices, demand has not grown rapidly enough to prevent a declining trend in employment, the data suggest. The reason is similar to that which reduced employment in agriculture: Faster productivity growth has allowed the U.S. to meet its needs and to redeploy workers to other parts of the economy.

Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade. Using input-output tables that list the job content of production, we found that in 1998 and 2010, replacing imports with domestically produced goods would have increased manufacturing employment by 2.6 million and 2.9 million in each of those years, respectively. However, over that period, manufacturing employment would have declined by 5.7 million jobs with balanced trade—just 5% less than the 6 million jobs that were lost with the trade deficits that the U.S. actually experienced. (See the exhibit “Balanced Trade Won’t Offset Job Losses Permanently.”)

The main cause, again, is the increasing growth in labor productivity. In current dollars, the manufacturing trade deficit was twice as large in 2010 as it was in 1998, but the output per worker was higher, so the job content of each dollar of deficit has been falling rapidly. Even if the U.S. had enjoyed balanced trade in the past two decades, the share of manufacturing in employment would still have tumbled.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 30, 2016, 04:27:12 PM
How about a Trump/Sanders ticket?

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/30/10869974/trump-sanders-economic-history

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 01, 2016, 12:24:52 AM
automated labor is super relevant.  i'm saying that bringing lost manufacturing back to america is a fool's errand since it won't actually produce a significant amount of jobs.  it will bring mostly robots and some additional output.  since manufacturing output is already at record levels, we clearly don't need the output.  or, more accurately, we don't need it so badly that we should dramatically raise the prices on consumer goods with a bunch of tariffs and import taxes.

The prices of consumer goods are eventually going to raise regardless. China is spoofing their currency to make huge gains in the current trading game. They're essentially fueling America's consumerism and in the end it isn't going to be good for the people or the economy of the United States. Talking about record high manufacturing isn't indicative of our situation, since our population employment participation rate is the lowest it has been since the 80's.


really?  what about electricians, plumbers, architects, bankers, brokers, pilots, truckers, utilities workers, videographers, every job related to computers/the internet, publishers, writers, the insurance industry, real estate managers, accountants/bookkeepers, engineers of every kind, scientific researchers, business managers, business owners, teachers, medical technicians, nurses, paralegals, dentists, therapists, entertainers, maintenance workers...those are just the ones i can think of off the top of my head.  you're underestimating how vast the service sector is.

I'll admit here that my definition of the services sector has been vastly poisoned by E-Trade and their search engine. On E-Trade, the services sector consists of retail, sales, and some maintenance service industries. It completely excludes financial, healthcare, technology, energy since these are considered separate stock sectors. This disconnect is really a result of me using my working definition of "services sector" versus the academic approach.

do you have any evidence to support any of the claims you make?  this is all utter nonsense.  that's not how any of this works.  either way, crushing our economy under the weight of a bunch of idiotic protectionism (and heralded by the gop...i'm just so utterly confused about what's happening in america right now).  how are tax hikes and increasing prices on consumer goods going to save us from china?  are you people listening to yourselves?

Historically, tariffs and import tax is actually very good for American interests and time and time again protectionism has proved to be an effective economic ideal. The EU, for example, exists almost entirely as a protectionist entity for European nations. The VAT is a form of 'idiotic' protectionism that's actually done very well.

This additionally proves very true in the manufacturing industry. The majority of Japanese vehicles are actually manufactured in the US, but this was not always true. When they were originally released to US markets many American vehicle companies suffered across the board. Harley Davidson wouldn't even be around if not for a tariff raise (http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/02/business/us-raises-tariff-for-motorcycles.html)

Quote
When it comes to GDP per capita, the World Bank puts the United States at $54,629 and China at $7,590. (China’s income inequality gap, which seems to matter to people, is wider than the United States’s.) Although the nearly eight years of progressive economics creeping into U.S. policy has degraded economic freedom, the World Economic Forum still ranks the U.S. economy as the third most competitive in the world. China is 28th. I could dig up another 100 metrics of wealth and well-being and they would all say the same exact thing. So, yeah, they’re not “killing us” in any measurable way.

Now, I can explain this to my increasingly shrinking pool of protectionist friends—show them some nifty graphs, maybe—but they won’t care. They’ll tell me we don’t make anything anymore! even if U.S. manufacturing output has quadrupled since 1990. They’ll tell me we’re losing, even though the United States is becoming more competitive in manufacturing through automation and other efficiencies, creating advanced technology products with higher pay. The average American worker is responsible for nearly six times the output of the average Chinese worker. Why would we want to “bring back” an unproductive economy that saps jobs, I’ll ask?  It’s all BS, they’ll say.

They’ll tell me the working class is shrinking, but forget that it’s getting richer. Mark Perry at AEI has done great work on dispelling the myth that the middle class is losing ground. As Thomas Sowell points out today, 51 percent of American families will be in the top 10 percent of income earners at some point during their lifetime. Our wages haven’t gone up, says every politician. Yet if we consider what Americans can buy with a dollar, inflation, and how much employers pay in benefits, this isn’t exactly true for most people. They don’t care.

I'm talking about the future and you're busy quoting the present. Fantastic.

Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade. Using input-output tables that list the job content of production, we found that in 1998 and 2010, replacing imports with domestically produced goods would have increased manufacturing employment by 2.6 million and 2.9 million in each of those years, respectively. However, over that period, manufacturing employment would have declined by 5.7 million jobs with balanced trade—just 5% less than the 6 million jobs that were lost with the trade deficits that the U.S. actually experienced. (See the exhibit “Balanced Trade Won’t Offset Job Losses Permanently.”)

Tell that to the people who lost their job when a company moved to Mexico or China. I know plenty of them, and when a man stands up and says "I can bring your job back" they're going to vote for him.

The main cause, again, is the increasing growth in labor productivity. In current dollars, the manufacturing trade deficit was twice as large in 2010 as it was in 1998, but the output per worker was higher, so the job content of each dollar of deficit has been falling rapidly. Even if the U.S. had enjoyed balanced trade in the past two decades, the share of manufacturing in employment would still have tumbled.

If this is the legitimate issue, why aren't the plants just closing altogether? They're moving, not closing, so don't you think there might be some reason they might want to be in Mexico or China instead of here?

It is also very important to remember China is an enemy of the United States.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 01, 2016, 02:37:02 PM
Trump’s delegate count dropping by 50 as a result of what happened during this week’s CNN townhall meeting

"Trump reneged on his pledge to support the GOP candidate. The reason is that by doing so, he may have jeopardized his hold on South Carolina’s 50 delegates.

As Time reports, the Palmetto State was one of several that required candidates to pledge their loyalty to the party’s eventual nominee in order to secure a slot on the primary ballot. Though Trump won all of the state’s 50 delegates in the Feb. 20 primary, anti-Trump forces are plotting to contest their binding to Trump because of his threat on the pledge Tuesday."

South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Matt Moore gave credence to the anti-Trump claims: “Breaking South Carolina’s presidential primary ballot pledge raises some unanswered legal questions that no one person can answer,” he told Time. “However, a court or national convention Committee on Contests could resolve them. It could put delegates in jeopardy.”

http://time.com/4278295/donald-trump-loyalty-pledge-south-carolina-delegates/

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 03, 2016, 10:52:41 PM
The prices of consumer goods are eventually going to raise regardless. China is spoofing their currency to make huge gains in the current trading game. They're essentially fueling America's consumerism and in the end it isn't going to be good for the people or the economy of the United States. Talking about record high manufacturing isn't indicative of our situation, since our population employment participation rate is the lowest it has been since the 80's.

i disagree with all of this.

Historically, tariffs and import tax is actually very good for American interests and time and time again protectionism has proved to be an effective economic ideal. The EU, for example, exists almost entirely as a protectionist entity for European nations. The VAT is a form of 'idiotic' protectionism that's actually done very well.

This additionally proves very true in the manufacturing industry. The majority of Japanese vehicles are actually manufactured in the US, but this was not always true. When they were originally released to US markets many American vehicle companies suffered across the board. Harley Davidson wouldn't even be around if not for a tariff raise (http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/02/business/us-raises-tariff-for-motorcycles.html)

the comparison to reagan's motorcycle tariff isn't apples-to-apples.  that tariff affected a single us manufacturer (and only a narrow subset of consumers), and harley davidson only requested temporary relief in order to restructure their whole firm.  they even successfully lobbied the reagan administration to end the tariff after just a few years.

the bigger picture, though, is that motorcycle consumers are not an integral part of the us economy.  increasing the average price of motorcycles doesn't really affect anything.  trump's tariffs would affect goods-consumers who are vital to production and employment.

a better analogy would be to the steel industry, which was heavily tariffed by the bush administration in 2002 in the face of a decline in us steel production and employment.  the effect was pretty much exactly what you would expect.  us steel consumers (a huge sector of the economy) were hit hard by a massive spike in steel prices.  according to the top source, "More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself."

http://www.tradepartnership.com/pdf_files/2002jobstudy.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg81372/html/CHRG-107hhrg81372.htm

also, vats aren't tariffs: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7211.pdf

I'm talking about the future and you're busy quoting the present. Fantastic.

Tell that to the people who lost their job when a company moved to Mexico or China. I know plenty of them, and when a man stands up and says "I can bring your job back" they're going to vote for him.

this is exactly my point.  you're all going to go out and vote for someone just because he promised you he'd get you your job back.  but you never stopped to ask if he could actually fulfill that promise.  that's no different than the college kids voting for bernie because woooooooo free college and health care for all!

i'm criticizing the notion that china is 'killing us' economically.  you're asserting, without warrant, things about the future that bear no resemblance to the way things actually are.

and, i agree that people losing their jobs is a bad thing.  that's why i don't think we should jump headlong into poorly conceived economic policy that will end up costing more jobs than it saves.  losing 2 service sector jobs to save 1 manufacturing job is bad policy if you care about jobs, and that's what trump is selling.

why aren't the plants just closing altogether? They're moving, not closing

some do close.  some move abroad.  some outsource particular components or processes abroad.  some stay here and earn lower margin.  some restructure and lay-off workers.  there's not some sudden mass exodus of manufacturing firms all to china. 

It is also very important to remember China is an enemy of the United States.

if you insist.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 06, 2016, 06:27:15 PM
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/8wmfl1/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-tales-from-the-trump-archive---donald-trump-s-history-of-misogyny

what
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2016, 12:11:09 PM
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1239484916092364&id=354522044588660


Paul Ryan: A better candidate than Trump or Cruz.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 07, 2016, 12:13:57 PM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-poses-dilemma-for-new-york-republicans-1457104385
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 07, 2016, 03:41:07 PM
Since there are only a few primaries left, we can calculate the total number of delegates alloted for each candidate, up until June 7:

Trump 964

Cruz 794

Kasich 178

That is, Trump will need to win at least 273 delegates, out of a total of 303, come June 7.

Let us remember that in Pennsylvania only 17 of the total 71 delegates are bounded, and Cruz has been working hard to meet with and talk to the possible unbounded delegates at various meetings.

In New Jersey, just like in New York (where the most important factor will be the Rubio voters), Trump is not especially popular with Republicans, even though they will vote for him.

The best case scenario right now for Trump in California is an even split of the total vote with Cruz; a more realistic outcome is Cruz winning at least 100 delegates there.


Let also remember that Trump will have to take the stand in just a few months, in the university scam case.

Also he will have to release his tax returns BEFORE the Cleveland convention.


An independent bid by Trump will only take place with Sanders on the same ticket (or both running independent bids simultaneously), I believe (both are independent, and share many common views), which will weaken the Democrats' chances considerably.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 08, 2016, 09:59:03 AM
Trumps wall plan:

Quote
What is in Trump's plan?
Trump says as president, he would block the estimated $24 billion in remittances that Mexicans in the U.S. send back home until Mexico pays $5 billion to $10 billion for the construction costs of the wall.
Once the money is deposited, he says he would allow the flow of remittances to resume to Mexico again. In his campaign memo outlining the plan (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall), Trump writes, "It's an easy decision for Mexico. Make a one-time payment of $5 - $10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."


Couple of things I have issues with.
1. $10 Billion isn't enough for a wall the size and strength he proposes.  Unless he uses cheap Mexican labor.
2. He proposes that any transfer of money to Mexico requires proof of legal residency.  And how do we do this?  Drivers Licenses are easily faked (so the haters say) and anything else is a passport or a birth certificate.  Yes, I'm talking about natural born citizens.  Which means if you need to send money to anyone in Mexico for any reason, you gotta prove you're a US citizen or legal alien.  This includes businesses.
3. How the hell does all the legal and illegals sending money into Mexico come close to $24 Billion?
According to this:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states


There are about 12 Million Mexicans in the US. 

Each one (including children) must send about $2,000 a year to Mexico.  Doesn't seem likely to me.   My guess is that the number includes business transactions as well, so Trump is proposing we stop buying anything from Mexico via wire transfer.  Which is going to...
1. Piss off the banks who rely on the fees.
2. Piss off the businesses who rely on buying ANYTHING outside of the US.

3. Piss off the foreign voters who want to send money to family. PS. my wife was in that boat.  Had to send money to her Norwegian account every month to pay her loans when she lived here.  Does that mean she'd have to prove she's legal every time she sent money via paypal?

4. A one time payment?  To who?  Trump?  Or Congress? And how long will THAT take before it's used on something else? 



And, of course, this requires congressional approval.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 09, 2016, 06:08:05 PM
http://allnewsintheworld.com/2016/04/08/ted-cruz-risks-primary-disqualification-in-new-jersey-other-late-primary-states-charges-professor-victor-williams/

Rafael Cruz is a dirty Canadian rat and soon he might be taken off the ballot for failing to meet the definition of "natural born citizen." Constitutional lawyer, my ass. Go back to Canada, Rafael.

Quote
Williams’ fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz’s ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State (Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 09, 2016, 06:12:19 PM
http://allnewsintheworld.com/2016/04/08/ted-cruz-risks-primary-disqualification-in-new-jersey-other-late-primary-states-charges-professor-victor-williams/

Rafael Cruz is a dirty Canadian rat and soon he might be taken off the ballot for failing to meet the definition of "natural born citizen." Constitutional lawyer, my ass. Go back to Canada, Rafael.

Quote
Williams’ fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz’s ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State (Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.


Aaahahahhahahahahhahahahha!!!!


Where are the birthers now?!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 09, 2016, 07:04:08 PM
Stop getting your news from crank sites, Rushy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 09, 2016, 07:35:13 PM
Stop getting your news from crank sites, Rushy.

Oh, sorry Saddam, I forgot you're incapable of searching for information over the Internet.

Here, the law professor they spoke about is a writer on Huff Post, which I'm sure is your number one source of reality these days: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/not-eligible-to-play-top-_b_9554784.html

He announced his full intentions of charging Cruz in court and now other people are writing articles on how that's coming along. That's how news works, Saddam. They write about new things happening as they develop. Shocking, I know, but try to think about it for a bit and maybe it'll clear up the fog in your head.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 09, 2016, 09:41:36 PM
Cruz is under no more serious scrutiny about his eligibility to be president than Obama, and the cries of a political activist on the Internet (along with the clickbait websites repeating his claims) are not going to change that.  Also, Kim Guadagno is the lieutenant governor of New Jersey, not the Secretary of State.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 09, 2016, 10:19:53 PM
Cruz is under no more serious scrutiny about his eligibility to be president than Obama, and the cries of a political activist on the Internet (along with the clickbait websites repeating his claims) are not going to change that.  Also, Kim Guadagno is the lieutenant governor of New Jersey, not the Secretary of State.

Except the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is actually established and that there is precedent for naturalization not counting as 'natural born'. This is why it was a big deal whether Obama was born in Kenya or not, because if he was, then he wasn't eligible to be president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 10, 2016, 02:04:56 AM
He wasn't naturalized.  He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen.  Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.  It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 10, 2016, 07:56:27 AM
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/07/five-things-must-know-new-york-gop-primary/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 10, 2016, 03:29:24 PM
He wasn't naturalized.  He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen.  Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.  It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.

He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael" There's power in a name, Saddam, and using the right name at the right time and place can ruin a man; especially a man running on a platform of voters that aren't fond of foreigners.

nomen est omen

Also, he is a citizen because his mother was a citizen, but he was born in a foreign nation on foreign soil (e.g., not a military base). That doesn't meet the "natural born" requirement in the Constitution. Natural born is defined in English common law as "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" and while obviously you could say "lol Canada is a dominion of the crown of England!" the concept when applied to the US means you must be born within the dominion of the US. Unless he was born in an Embassy or on a military base, that requirement isn't meet overseas.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 10, 2016, 03:43:10 PM
Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about John Oliver and his audience calling Trump "Drumpf"?

Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.
That seems far-fetched. Wojtyła and Bergoglio had/have to deal with it too. It's a bit rude, sure, but I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the sound of "Ratzinger".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 10, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
There's power in a name, Saddam,

This is true, just ask Donald Drumpf!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 10, 2016, 05:47:55 PM
This is true, just ask Donald Drumpf!
Yeah, that rich German dude clearly planned for his descendants to rise to power... during the Thirty Years' War...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 10, 2016, 05:55:04 PM
Make Donald Drumpf again!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on April 10, 2016, 05:59:46 PM
It's the current year!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 10, 2016, 07:31:38 PM
He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael"

As I told you on IRC, this isn't true.  He's gone by Ted at least since 1992, as shown by a thesis he wrote back then:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/480888/cruz-thesis.pdf

Quote
Also, he is a citizen because his mother was a citizen, but he was born in a foreign nation on foreign soil (e.g., not a military base). That doesn't meet the "natural born" requirement in the Constitution. Natural born is defined in English common law as "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" and while obviously you could say "lol Canada is a dominion of the crown of England!" the concept when applied to the US means you must be born within the dominion of the US. Unless he was born in an Embassy or on a military base, that requirement isn't meet overseas.

"Natural born" isn't defined in the Constitution, while federal law extends birthright citizenship to those born either on American soil or to an American parent.  I'll concede that it is possible that a court might rule that you
have to be born on American soil to be eligible to run for president, but the chances of that happening - especially in the next few months - are very remote.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about John Oliver and his audience calling Trump "Drumpf"?

That was pretty immature too, but at the very least, it was intended to just give him a goofy name that nobody could take seriously, rather than a xenophobic hint that he wasn't one of us.

Quote
That seems far-fetched. Wojtyła and Bergoglio had/have to deal with it too. It's a bit rude, sure, but I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the sound of "Ratzinger".

Maybe.  I just remember a few people here always calling him that, and seemingly finding excuses to repeat the name.  Moreso than calling Francis "Bergoglio," certainly, but then again, he hasn't come under nearly as much criticism as Benedict.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 10, 2016, 08:51:36 PM
As I told you on IRC, this isn't true.  He's gone by Ted at least since 1992, as shown by a thesis he wrote back then:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/480888/cruz-thesis.pdf

Okay, I still hate Rafael.


"Natural born" isn't defined in the Constitution, while federal law extends birthright citizenship to those born either on American soil or to an American parent.  I'll concede that it is possible that a court might rule that you
have to be born on American soil to be eligible to run for president, but the chances of that happening - especially in the next few months - are very remote.

"Natural born" is defined by both English common law (which is historically accepted to be the basis on the Constitution) and Supreme Court precedence (United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898). There are also many other examples:

Quote
“…A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens…”

Here’s how Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971):

"Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”

Here’s how Justice William O. Douglas said it in Schneider V. Rusk (1964):

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”

And in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said:

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”

In U.S. v. Fisher , 48 F S 7, the court said:

"A naturalized citizen, broadly speaking, enjoys all the rights of the native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction, Const. rt. 2, par 1, cl 4 and this constitutional exception is limited alone to the occupancy of the office of President of the United States.”

Like I said, Saddam, it isn't in question whether or not a foreign-born person who was not on a military base or embassy can be president (the answer being that they can't). The only question here is why this isn't a bigger deal and why the only person willing to challenge Cruz on it is a law professor in New Jersey.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2016, 09:42:11 PM
But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:

Quote
...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/671) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen.  The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad.  Cruz's father is Cuban.  His mother is American.  His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown.  If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law.  If not, then he is not.


Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this.  What does Rush Limbaugh think?  Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny.  Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 10, 2016, 09:48:36 PM
But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:

Quote
...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/671) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen.  The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad.  Cruz's father is Cuban.  His mother is American.  His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown.  If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law.  If not, then he is not.


Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this.  What does Rush Limbaugh think?  Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny.  Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.

The Common Law precedence doesn't matter because I later found actual Supreme Court rulings on the definition of "Natural Born" in the Constitution. The Common Law basis only comes into play if there is no Court precedence, which isn't the case anymore.

I'm sure the same people looking for Obama's birth certificate are now sweeping Cruz's foreign birth under the rug.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2016, 09:51:29 PM
But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:

Quote
...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/671) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen.  The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad.  Cruz's father is Cuban.  His mother is American.  His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown.  If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law.  If not, then he is not.


Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this.  What does Rush Limbaugh think?  Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny.  Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.

The Common Law precedence doesn't matter because I later found actual Supreme Court rulings on the definition of "Natural Born" in the Constitution. The Common Law basis only comes into play if there is no Court precedence, which isn't the case anymore.
But there hasn't been a ruling, has there?  I see the opinions being stated and you're right, there is court precedence, but until it's actually ruled one way or another, it's up in the air, isn't it? 



Also, because I think it's interesting:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275789-trump-primary-processes-on-both-sides-corrupt

Trump is supporting Bernie because Bernie keeps winning but calls the entire process of picking a representative corrupted saying the the Republicans are worse than the Democrats.

Quote
"Because the system is corrupt. And it's worse on the Republican side."

It's nice to see a Republican state that their party is more corrupt than the Democrats.  :)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 10, 2016, 10:33:29 PM
Yeah after the Colorado gaffe I agree with him. If you can win an entire state only to have every delegate turn around and support Cruz, then obviously something is wrong with the voting system.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 11, 2016, 02:31:53 AM
@Rushy: That's not how courts work.  When a court makes a ruling, the legal precedent that is set is no more than the subject of the case itself.  The opinions that judges write are meant to explain their reasoning and how they arrived at their decision.  They're not necessarily irrelevant to future cases, but you can't just take an individual line from the opinion on a separate (albeit related) subject and treat it as though it constitutes a ruling in and of itself.  If that were the case, there would be a hundred different potential rulings contained in every new ruling the courts delivered, and many of them would contradict each other.  It's forbidden by the Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause) for courts to issue rulings on hypothetical or potential future cases, in any event.  There needs to be a case on the specific subject of whether or not someone born outside of the United States is eligible to run for president before we can say that there's precedent on the subject, and so far the people who are trying to press this issue (including Victor Williams) are stuck on the stage of trying to prove that they have legal standing to challenge Cruz's eligibility.

And English common law, while certainly a major influence on the writing of the Constitution, is not an authority in this country.  A judge might take it into consideration if they were ruling on the subject, but it means very little by itself.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 11, 2016, 05:33:45 AM
That was pretty immature too, but at the very least, it was intended to just give him a goofy name that nobody could take seriously, rather than a xenophobic hint that he wasn't one of us.
There is nothing silly about "Drumpf" - it's a perfectly typical German surname. The only thing that's notable about it is exactly its origin. Your argument really boils down to "it's not xenophobic when I find it funny".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 11, 2016, 01:53:16 PM
To the fickle American electorate, "Drumpf" does sound silly, just as "Trump" sounds impressive.  Even if you disagree, that was Oliver's argument.  As he described it:

Quote
Drumpf is much less magical. It’s the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy. Drumpf. It’s the sound of a bottle of store-brand root beer falling off the shelf in a gas station minimart.

There was nothing about making fun of it for sounding German.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 11, 2016, 02:39:33 PM
fwiw, i had no clue it was a german name until this thread.  i thought it was just supposed to sound like a funny name.

americans arent well versed in 19th century german surnames
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 11, 2016, 02:56:58 PM
To the fickle American electorate, "Drumpf" does sound silly, just as "Trump" sounds impressive.  Even if you disagree, that was Oliver's argument.
I'm seeing a trend here. "Ratzinger" sounds funny, as is "Drumpf". Are you sure you (or the fickle American electorate) don't just find German names hilarious? If so, how can you argue that this stems from anything other than blatant xenophobia? Dummköpfe.

I quite like Rosenbaum's take on this situation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/03/john-olivers-donald-drumpf-jokes-play-on-the-same-ugly-xenophobia-trump-does/

americans arent well versed in 19th century german surnames
You're looking at the 17th century here. Yes, it's that petty. John Oliver is making fun of someone for changing their surname nearly 400 years ago.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 11, 2016, 03:50:34 PM
You're looking at the 17th century here. Yes, it's that petty. John Oliver is making fun of someone for changing their surname nearly 400 years ago.

eh, i really think the joke oliver is making is not "he's german!" but "lol drumpf is a dumb sounding name."  i don't think the bit would work if trump's surname had once been muller or weber or something.

tbh i also don't care about rushy calling cruz rafael; i'm only suggesting that americans are even dumber than you give us credit. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 11, 2016, 04:46:45 PM
John Oliver is a comedian. The Drumpf thing was a joke. I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was intended to be a riff on the Donald's xenophobic attitude. It is funny to me that a conservative columnist , not to mention some people here, are taking it so seriously.

Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion, but I rather doubt it's something that is specific to Americans.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 11, 2016, 06:30:01 PM
John Oliver is a comedian.
That's a rather generous description.

The Drumpf thing was a joke. I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was intended to be a riff on the Donald's xenophobic attitude. It is funny to me that a conservative columnist , not to mention some people here, are taking it so seriously.
What conservative columnist?

Also, I'm just sick of the "racism/sexism/xenophobia is ok when we do it, it's just a prank bro!" attitude that the American left so loves to flaunt. You guys need to pick a side and stick to it - anything else is cheating.

Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion, but I rather doubt it's something that is specific to Americans.
I mean, given Americans' general level of awareness regarding the outside world, there's plenty of reason to suspect that you finding German names funny is rooted in xenophobia, and that it's specific to Americans.

i'm only suggesting that americans are even dumber than you give us credit. 
Fair enough.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 11, 2016, 06:49:03 PM

Also, I'm just sick of the "racism/sexism/xenophobia is ok when we do it, it's just a prank bro!" attitude that the American left so loves to flaunt. You guys need to pick a side and stick to it - anything else is cheating.


It sounds like you are saying context and intention have no effect on the meaning of a communication.  If that were the case, a lot of humor in general would be completely impossible.  John Oliver was clearly engaging in satire around the brand value of the Trump name; he basically said as much at the outset.  If you don't appreciate it, that is fine, but don't pretend that this sort of humor is indistinguishable from serious comments. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 11, 2016, 08:05:19 PM
It sounds like you are saying context and intention have no effect on the meaning of a communication.
No, I'm saying that xenophobic jokes are still xenophobic, regardless of being jokes. "It's just a joke lol!" is a very poor excuse if you're trying to criticise someone else for their (alleged) xenophobia.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 11, 2016, 11:01:17 PM
yeah americans are super xenophobic of 17th century germans

ffs wtf are you even talking about

John Oliver is a comedian.
That's a rather generous description.
(http://i.imgur.com/vOlA2Ru.png?1)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2016, 01:01:47 AM
yeah americans are super xenophobic of 17th century germans

ffs wtf are you even talking about

1. makes fun of a german name because it "sounds funny"
2. wants a clearly American assimilated man and his family to revert to his "hilarious" german name
3. calls the man with german heritage hitler

The evidence adds up in the favor of these people being germanphobes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2016, 02:00:50 AM
change 'germay' to any other country and the joke is exactly as funny.  change 'drumpf' to 'muller' and the joke doesn't make any sense at all.  it's not about germany.  it's about the name 'drumpf' sounding dumb.

have y'all actually seen the bit?  the setup is that name trump literally sounds like success.  the punchline is that his ancestral name sounds goofy and silly and stupid.  i really don't get how anyone could watch that bit and think that the joke has anything to do with the name being german, or even foreign.  he even uses the word onomatopoeia to describe why it's funny.

https://youtu.be/DnpO_RTSNmQ?t=18m
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2016, 02:11:17 AM
change 'germay' to any other country and the joke is exactly as funny.  change 'drumpf' to 'muller' and the joke doesn't make any sense at all.  it's not about germany.  it's about the name 'drumpf' sounding dumb.

have y'all actually seen the bit?  the setup is that name trump literally sounds like success.  the punchline is that his ancestral name sounds goofy and silly and stupid.  i really don't get how anyone could watch that bit and think that the joke has anything to do with the name being german, or even foreign.  he even uses the word onomatopoeia to describe why it's funny.

Sounds like a thin excuse for Germanphobia to me. Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2016, 02:41:51 AM
Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?

have you ever smelled a german?  gross.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2016, 03:13:41 AM
Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?

have you ever smelled a german?  gross.

There it is, folks. Germanphobia. I propose we ban Gary for being a racist, bigot, sexist, Germanphobic ableist cis pig.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2016, 03:54:26 AM
Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?

have you ever smelled a german?  gross.

There it is, folks. Germanphobia. I propose we ban Gary for being a racist, bigot, sexist, Germanphobic ableist cis pig.

psh that's so vanilla.  i'm also ageist, orientalist, imperialist, anthropocentric, and urbanist.

but, as my avatar attests, not homophobic.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2016, 09:03:24 AM
Rushy pretty much covered the subject by now, but hey:

change 'germay' to any other country and the joke is exactly as funny.  change 'drumpf' to 'muller' and the joke doesn't make any sense at all.
Look, this may make super perfect sense to you, but I'm not a xenophobe, so you may have to spell it out for me. The name "Drumpf" sounds like any other German name. The joke doesn't make any sense at all regardless of what name or country you pick1 -- unless you accept the axiom that foreign names are somehow funny.

If I am to assume good faith, your argument is that if his ancestor's name2 was a German name that's more commonly3 known in America, the joke would no longer be funny. In other words, if only his name was less foreign and more like our proper names, the joke would no longer be funny to you.

it's not about germany.  it's about the name 'drumpf' sounding dumb.
Explain how it sounds dumb without invoking nationalities or native languages. In other words, explain it without invoking xenophobia.

he even uses the word onomatopoeia to describe why it's funny.
Damn, he must be so educated and smart. Too bad he's still a bigoted asshole.

Imagine the outrage "comedians" of Oliver's calibre would try to spin if it turned out that "Clinton" meant something funny in a foreign language, or if someone tried calling her "Glympton" to make it sound "funny" (I still don't get it - am I doing it right?). It would be so xenophobic and sexist! But this is okay, because it's about Trump, and Trump is a big meanie.

You people are pathetic.

1 - Except for the "lol Trump is Hitler" bit, of course - his great great great [...] grandfather being German totally helps there.
2 - Four hundred years ago.
3 - Currently. I mean, (https://i.imgur.com/MFYqY4D.jpg) it's 2016!!!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2016, 02:41:10 PM
good faith
lol you're currently pretending to be offended by something just to stick it to someone.

Explain how it sounds dumb without invoking nationalities or native languages. In other words, explain it without invoking xenophobia.
ok...i'll let oliver speak for himself:

"Trump does sound rich.  It's almost onomatopoeic.  Trump! is the sound of a mouthy servant being slapped across the face with a wad thousand dollar bills.  Trump! is the sound of a cork popping on a couple's Champaignneversary: the day renovations to the wine cellar were finally completed...Drumpf is much less magical. It’s the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy.  Drumpf! It’s the sound of a bottle of store-brand root beer falling off the shelf in a gas station minimart."

i'm going to make up a name: boof.  i've never heard this name before, and if it's real, then i have no idea where it comes from.  the joke is exactly the same if you replace drumpf with boof:

"Trump does sound rich.  It's almost onomatopoeic.  Trump! is the sound of a mouthy servant being slapped across the face with a wad thousand dollar bills.  Trump! is the sound of a cork popping on a couple's Champaignneversary: the day renovations to the wine cellar were finally completed...Boof is much less magical. It’s the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy.  Boof! It’s the sound of a bottle of store-brand root beer falling off the shelf in a gas station minimart."

the origin of the name is irrelevant.  drumpf, like boof, is an onomatopoeia.  that's the joke.  the joke doesn't work with any funny sounding name.  it that's drumpf is an onomatopoeia.  for example, bumgarner is a really funny sounding german name, but the joke wouldn't make sense at all using that name.

Imagine the outrage "comedians" of Oliver's calibre would try to spin if it turned out that "Clinton" meant something funny in a foreign language, or if someone tried calling her "Glympton" to make it sound "funny" (I still don't get it - am I doing it right?). It would be so xenophobic and sexist! But this is okay, because it's about Trump, and Trump is a big meanie.

You people are pathetic.

which people?  people who aren't offended by the john oliver bit? 

if the clintons used to be the comptons, i would think that was p funny.  would you not?  that's a funny juxtaposition.

the problem here is that you're all bothered about things you just assume i must believe and not what i've actually said. you think liberals are too easily offended, and of course i must be liberal because i said a liberal thing, and somehow you conceive of this as giving a liberal a taste of his own medicine/demonstrating a contradiction/whatever.  that's all that's happening here.  but, i'm not in the 'everything is offensive and terrible' group, so maybe leave me out of that debate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 12, 2016, 03:48:05 PM
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/12/donald-trump-faces-delegate-armageddon-arkasas/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2016, 06:16:24 PM
lol you're currently pretending to be offended by something just to stick it to someone.
I'm not really offended. I'm just not a fan of making fun of people's nationalities, much less a fan of "haunting" someone with the nationality of their forefathers 4 centuries ago.

It's more of an "ummm that's not in good taste" thing, not a "OH NO YOU DIDN'T" thing. It does disgust me in the same way an old mouldy sandwich would. It's strongly unappealing, but not outrageous.


ok...i'll let oliver speak for himself:

[...]

i'm going to make up a name: boof.  i've never heard this name before, and if it's real, then i have no idea where it comes from.  the joke is exactly the same if you replace drumpf with boof:

[...]

the origin of the name is irrelevant.  drumpf, like boof, is an onomatopoeia.  that's the joke.  the joke doesn't work with any funny sounding name.  it that's drumpf is an onomatopoeia.  for example, bumgarner is a really funny sounding german name, but the joke wouldn't make sense at all using that name.
Okay, so he'd make another joke about how funny and German his name is. I don't see where you're going with this.

which people?  people who aren't offended by the john oliver bit?
People who pretend to care about discrimination, but are happy to discriminate when it suits them. As I said: pick a side.

if the clintons used to be the comptons, i would think that was p funny.  would you not?  that's a funny juxtaposition.
I don't get it.

the problem here is that you're all bothered about things you just assume i must believe and not what i've actually said.
Actually, I was criticising Saddam and Rushy. You just kind of rocked up and assumed I'm talking about you. It's probably because you're so easily offen-

you think liberals are too easily offended, and of course i must be liberal [...]
oh

Seriously, though, until you started really insisting to force yourself into the discussion, my responses to you consisted of a quick correction (17th century, not 19th) and a "Fair enough". Each of these was tacked on at the end of one of my posts. That's not to say I don't want you to get involved in the conversation, but it's rich to assume that I was talking about you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 12, 2016, 10:08:35 PM
You are right, there's absolutely no line between what is appropriate for a comedian to say and what is appropriate for a potential world leader to say and we are all hypocrites for laughing at John Oliver while at the same time  calling Drumpf a monster.  Omg I'm like totes for seriously. Thank you for opening my mind to what an intolerant bigot I am.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2016, 10:40:50 PM
Oh, don't worry, I wasn't hoping to convince you. I was mostly curious to see if I'm missing something, or if you're just racist (so much that you're willing to go back 400 years in your desperate search. You're beating birthers on that front by quite a margin!). But no matter how many opportunities I give you to explain yourselves, all you have to say is "it's just a prank bro!" or "wow how ridiculous!"

EDIT: Actually, no, I take it back. You did partially admit it.

Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion

Yes, I'm entitled to my opinion that things which are xenophobic by definition are, in fact, xenophobic. Thank you for allowing me to consider that truism.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 13, 2016, 01:26:23 AM
For it to be -phobic, it must by definition, be driven by fear. Laughing at a foreign name does not, by necessity, satisfy that definition. Onomatopoeia can easily be another explanation, which is the reason John Oliver offers, so why do you dismiss that out of hand?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 13, 2016, 02:45:21 AM
Okay, so he'd make another joke about how funny and German his name is. I don't see where you're going with this.
i'm saying that the joke has nothing to do with the nationality of the name.  that's why the oliver bit never mentions the nationality of the name or even that it's foreign.  the joke is about the way these two words sound in contrast to one another.  it's not even about the name sounding funny because it's foreign.

wouldn't the joke be just as funny/sensical if, hypothetically, the name 'drumpf' was an english name?  how would the bit be any different?

if the clintons used to be the comptons, i would think that was p funny.  would you not?  that's a funny juxtaposition.
I don't get it.
clinton is a prestigious name, and compton is a shitty neighborhood in los angeles.  'clinton' isn't an onomatopoeia, and i'm not a comedy writer; best i could do off the top of my head.  the point is that i would definitely find equal humor in a bit about how the clinton's used to have a name that sounded distinctly un-prestigious. 

You just kind of rocked up and assumed I'm talking about you.
only when you were talking directly to me.  you quoted me and asked me to imagine the outrage at a similar joke involving hilary, then said "you people are pathetic."  you're taking my remarks out of context.  the statements about you being bothered are in response to "you people are pathetic."  prior to that i entered the conversation at my leisure because it's a web forum and not a dinner party.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on April 13, 2016, 09:08:15 AM
You have to work really hard to assign racism to what Oliver said, really hard. But the master hair splitter has put in that work, and it’s a marvel. Missing/twisting the point is an art form only this boy has the motivation to master, or perhaps I am being ungenerous, and when he says “I don’t get it”  maybe this is the case, humour (going on every post of his I’ve read) does seems an alien concept (racism?).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on April 13, 2016, 12:52:03 PM
Oh, don't worry, I wasn't hoping to convince you. I was mostly curious to see if I'm missing something, or if you're just racist (so much that you're willing to go back 400 years in your desperate search. You're beating birthers on that front by quite a margin!). But no matter how many opportunities I give you to explain yourselves, all you have to say is "it's just a prank bro!" or "wow how ridiculous!"

EDIT: Actually, no, I take it back. You did partially admit it.

Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion

Yes, I'm entitled to my opinion that things which are xenophobic by definition are, in fact, xenophobic. Thank you for allowing me to consider that truism.

I can't speak for others, but for me it's pure unbridled racism. When Taylor Swift said that haters gunna hate (hate hate hate hate), she was literally talking about me.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 13, 2016, 03:52:28 PM
For it to be -phobic, it must by definition, be driven by fear.
You're being overly restrictive. While most -phobias are indeed defined by fear, words such as homophobia and xenophobia have clearly evolved past that constraint. A dislike or prejudice are sufficient (https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/xenophobia), it doesn't have to be rooted in fear.

wouldn't the joke be just as funny/sensical if, hypothetically, the name 'drumpf' was an english name?  how would the bit be any different?
Hypothetically, yes; but that ignores like half of society. You wouldn't find an English name that sounds like something something being slapped across the face with wet money???, because you're already familiar with English names. The unfamiliarity is pretty much required for the joke to work. (And likely the reason why I'm not finding it funny no matter how hard I squint my eyes - I don't find German names to be unfamiliar or uncommon)

Onomatopoeia can easily be another explanation, which is the reason John Oliver offers, so why do you dismiss that out of hand?
I don't dismiss it - I simply point out that it's completely irrelevant. The explanations of "German names are funny" and "German names are funny because they sound like farting noises or whatever" both share the same element of xenophobia.

You have to work really hard to assign racism to what Oliver said, really hard. But the master hair splitter has put in that work, and it’s a marvel. Missing/twisting the point is an art form only this boy has the motivation to master, or perhaps I am being ungenerous, and when he says “I don’t get it”  maybe this is the case, humour (going on every post of his I’ve read) does seems an alien concept (racism?).
Ah yes, another fantastic response of the "it's just a prank bro!!!!" variety. Thank you for your excellent contribution.

I'll have you know that I have an excellent sense of humour. I have the best humour. Everyone knows that, and everyone loves my humour. And I can make America humorous again. We will have jokes again if I win. And I will win, because I'm a winner.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 13, 2016, 04:19:05 PM
Can we just agree to disagree and move on?  Discuss this instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/us/politics/donald-trump-losing-ground-tries-to-blame-the-system.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 13, 2016, 04:32:47 PM
Can we just agree to disagree and move on?
But calling liberals racist is hilarious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/us/politics/donald-trump-losing-ground-tries-to-blame-the-system.html
Meh. The two main parties in America are private entities and they can do whatever the heck they want. It was always an innate risk associated with that structure. However, as far as I understand, there's nothing stopping Trump/Sanders from running as independents, and if the system truly is rigged, they should stand a good chance to succeed (and perhaps change the system while they're at it)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 13, 2016, 04:36:20 PM
Baby Jebus, Sandokhan's prediction is coming true...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 13, 2016, 04:41:22 PM
Can we just agree to disagree and move on?
But calling liberals racist is hilarious.
lol called it

I'll have you know that I have an excellent sense of humour. I have the best humour. Everyone knows that, and everyone loves my humour. And I can make America humorous again. We will have jokes again if I win. And I will win, because I'm a winner.
2016 joke of the year
/sincere
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 13, 2016, 05:04:40 PM
Intermission: if you Google "zodiac killer" an image of Ted Cruz is genuinely the first image on the Google images tab.

This fun fact brought to you by TRUMP. continue whatever it is you guys are arguing about now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Снупс on April 13, 2016, 07:03:43 PM
wouldn't the joke be just as funny/sensical if, hypothetically, the name 'drumpf' was an english name?  how would the bit be any different?
Hypothetically, yes; but that ignores like half of society. You wouldn't find an English name that sounds like something something being slapped across the face with wet money???, because you're already familiar with English names. The unfamiliarity is pretty much required for the joke to work. (And likely the reason why I'm not finding it funny no matter how hard I squint my eyes - I don't find German names to be unfamiliar or uncommon)

I don't necessarily agree with that, there are English names I find to sound goofy and onomatopoeic despite familiarity, like "Walsh", which sounds to me like someone being submerged in a vat of oil, despite the fact that there are several Walsh's in my life. Honestly it's the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but "Drumpf" has the distinct advantage of the "pf" sound at the end, and is the only German name I can think of that sounds goofy to me. It sounds vaguely like an onomatopoeia for light contact, like "thump", "boff", whatever. Unfamiliarity isn't necessary at all for that kind of humour, just a lucky collection of letters in the right order. Like how I find the surname "Welch" to be awkwardly funny because it sounds vaguely like some kind of squelching sound.

I mean, "everything is racist" is great and all, I know Tumblr has imparted that wisdom onto the world, but I think sometimes things are a lot more simple.

EDIT: I've always found "Bush" kind of humourous, mainly because it sounds like it'd be a sound effect for punching in either the '60s Batman or the comics.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on April 14, 2016, 12:47:15 AM
Can we just agree to disagree and move on?  Discuss this instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/us/politics/donald-trump-losing-ground-tries-to-blame-the-system.html
Dumb people don't understand politics and instead of using Google and maybe learning something they get mad.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 14, 2016, 01:10:09 AM
Dumb people don't understand politics and instead of using Google and maybe learning something they get mad.

Ah yes, the classic "hurr durr dems da rulez" defense. This reminds me of Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy, where Arthur's house was about to be demolished to build a bypass and it was insisted that this was perfectly okay because the ruling regarding the demolition was readily available.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 14, 2016, 02:53:59 PM
Oh, don't worry, I wasn't hoping to convince you.

Oh but you really have. I find foreign names with weird strings of letters funny, sometimes hilarious (I laughed out loud when I saw your real name for the first time, for example) and I never realized until now what a horrible person that makes me. I see now, American comedy has firm roots in racism and John Oliver is no better than a 1940s minstrel show.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 14, 2016, 04:36:09 PM
Oh but you really have. I find foreign names with weird strings of letters funny, sometimes hilarious (I laughed out loud when I saw your real name for the first time, for example) and I never realized until now what a horrible person that makes me. I see now, American comedy has firm roots in racism and John Oliver is no better than a 1940s minstrel show.
Another victory for common sense and reason; although I feel like you're denigrating minstrel shows here by comparing them to John Oliver. You still have much to learn.

I mean, seriously, you're comparing this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Minstrel_PosterBillyVanWare_edit.jpg)

to this:

(https://i.imgur.com/MFYqY4D.jpg)

I've always found "Bush" kind of humourous, mainly because it sounds like it'd be a sound effect for punching in either the '60s Batman or the comics.
And yet you don't see hashtag campaigns demanding that Bush changes his surname to something else to make it more or less "funny".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 14, 2016, 06:25:09 PM

I've always found "Bush" kind of humourous, mainly because it sounds like it'd be a sound effect for punching in either the '60s Batman or the comics.
And yet you don't see hashtag campaigns demanding that Bush changes his surname to something else to make it more or less "funny".

You also don't see Bush contending for the GOP nomination. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 14, 2016, 06:52:03 PM
You also don't see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.
Jeb had his prime, even if it didn't end so well. So, uh, yeah, you do see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 14, 2016, 09:03:12 PM
You also don't see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.
Jeb had his prime, even if it didn't end so well. So, uh, yeah, you do see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.

He conceded over a month ago... He is not contending, and he never had the level of national attention or national incredulity that Trump had/has either.  For very obvious reasons, which you are likely over looking on purpose, Trump is a preferred targetfor satire and Bush is not.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 14, 2016, 09:47:34 PM
Remember that Oliver was arguing that Trump owes at least part of his popularity to the semantic and phonetic appeal of his name.  It wouldn't make sense from a satirical point of view to be making jokes about what Bush or Clinton's names ought to be.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 14, 2016, 10:10:03 PM
Oliver was also making the claim that Trump was being hypocritical when he attacked Jon Stewart for his name change from Leibowitz to Stewart.  Granted, the situations aren't the same, Stewart changed his while Trump's ancestor was the one who made the change. Without that attack on Stewart's name, I'd be surprised if Drumpf would have ever found the light of day.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4372969,00.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 14, 2016, 11:50:50 PM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 15, 2016, 02:05:01 AM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.

Literally what?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on April 15, 2016, 03:19:15 AM
But calling liberals racist is hilarious.
Because a lot of them are.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 15, 2016, 09:38:39 AM
But calling liberals racist is hilarious.
Because a lot of them are.
Ye, but just look how desperate they are to defend themselves.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 15, 2016, 09:52:46 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434087/ted-cruz-winning-marco-rubio-delegates

"We all know about RNC Rule 40(b) by now, stating that any candidate who wants to be on the ballot for a Convention floor vote in Cleveland at the Republican National Convention will have to have won a majority of delegates in 8 states. So far, both Trump and Cruz have done that, and no others have any realistic possibility of doing it.
However, the wording of the rule as laid out by The National Review’s Brendan Bordelon and Eliana Johnson brings up the possibility that Rule 40(b) could possibly be used by Cruz delegates to shut Trump out of the ballot:

The rules currently require a candidate to secure a petition featuring the signature of a majority of the delegates from eight states in order to be nominated…. [C]ollecting the signatures of a majority of the delegates in the required number of states would take a strong, organized effort on the ground in Cleveland, and Rubio is unlikely to pull it off.

According to one longtime RNC member, “Just because you won a state doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to have enough people in that delegate slate signing your petition. It’s a matter of high panic even when you’re Mitt Romney or George W. Bush.”


According to this rehash of Rule 40(b), the candidates need to arrive in Cleveland and then get a majority of delegates from 8 states to sign petitions for them to be on the ballot. This process is so difficult that it causes headaches for EASY nomination winners like George W. Bush and Mitt Romney!

So the question is – what if Trump can’t find majorities of delegates on the convention floor from 8 different states that are willing to sign petitions for him to be on the floor vote ballot?  Is it possible that Cruz-supporting and Rubio-supporting and #NeverTrump delegates could combine on the floor to keep Trump from getting the required majority of signatures on petitions from 8 states? Could they keep him from being voted on at all at the convention? Is it possible that Ted Cruz could be the only name on a Cleveland floor ballot?"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 15, 2016, 01:27:32 PM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.

Literally what?

Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, was accused of assault/battery by Michelle Fields during a Florida rally. It was big news in March because Trump refused to fire Lewandowski for "assaulting a journalist."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 15, 2016, 02:33:27 PM
Latest NY poll:

http://politicalmachination.com/poll-new-york-2016-presidential-primary-2/

Trump under 50%.

Also Trump will experience difficulties in the following districts: 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.

http://politicalmachination.com/trump-ahead-new-york-winner-take-uncertain/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 15, 2016, 02:37:34 PM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.

Literally what?

Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, was accused of assault/battery by Michelle Fields during a Florida rally. It was big news in March because Trump refused to fire Lewandowski for "assaulting a journalist."

Seems like standard American histrionics.  Lewandowski maybe grabbed her arm?  He should apologize like a big boy and everyone move on.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 15, 2016, 03:04:41 PM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.

Literally what?

Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, was accused of assault/battery by Michelle Fields during a Florida rally. It was big news in March because Trump refused to fire Lewandowski for "assaulting a journalist."

Seems like standard American histrionics.  Lewandowski maybe grabbed her arm?  He should apologize like a big boy and everyone move on.

Why would he apologize? Apologies are for things you shouldn't have done. In my opinion she should have been tackled on the spot for crossing the secret service perimeter. A quick pull away from a presidential candidate seems like a light punishment.

Fox News just fired her so I guess there's that.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 15, 2016, 04:15:53 PM
In my opinion she should have been tackled on the spot for crossing the secret service perimeter.

Is there a secret service perimeter for someone seeking a presidential nomination?  Anyway, a well-worded apology could have made it go away quickly without really taking culpability for the action. For example, apologize for over-stepping the secret service, it could have make him seem like a take charge kind of guy who cuts around the red tape, etc...

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 15, 2016, 05:42:23 PM

Is there a secret service perimeter for someone seeking a presidential nomination?
...yes. It's quite literally the reason the Florida prosecutor's office dropped the case: she crossed the secret service line.


  Anyway, a well-worded apology could have made it go away quickly without really taking culpability for the action. For example, apologize for over-stepping the secret service, it could have make him seem like a take charge kind of guy who cuts around the red tape, etc...

Security is part of the campaign manager's job. Again, Cory Lewandowski did absolutely nothing wrong and he has nothing to apologize for. This isn't the first time Michelle Fields acted like someone assaulted her and it probably won't be the last; she is a professional victim.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 16, 2016, 07:40:52 AM
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/04/14/in-georgia-donald-trump-supporters-sound-the-alarm-perhaps-too-late/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 16, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
Latest anti-Trump ad in NY:

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/04/16/watch-crushing-new-cruz-ad-airing-new-york-great-awesome/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 16, 2016, 05:45:52 PM
Latest, large poll in NY state, district by district:

http://39w38kcpdu73bfyfh2rez9zw.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PM_Graphs2_Trump-ahead-2-1.png
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 17, 2016, 05:44:59 PM
https://www.scribd.com/doc/309313864/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-California-April-17-2016

*poll is CBS news

Donald Trump leading California poll by 18 points. Looks like Cruz stealing the Colorado election didn't have a net positive effect. 49% of California Republicans want to vote Trump and 49% believe the nomination process "hasn't been fair." 49% also think he is more electable in November, which means that the 49% number appears to be a solid support base since they're answering consistently.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 17, 2016, 06:10:26 PM
You might have done some homework before posting.

The CBS/YouGov poll is worthless. The only poll that matters was included in my previous message.

Online poll of registered voters. Worthless.

"The CBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker is a panel study based on interviews conducted on the internet of registered voters in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York,Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The poll was conducted by YouGov, an online polling organization."

"The first wave was fielded between September 3-10, 2015 [...] In the eleventh wave of our primary surveys, respondents in California, New York, and Pennsylvania were contacted April 13-15, 2016.Respondents were selected from YouGovs and two other online panels. These are “opt-in” panels which are open for anyone to join. However, YouGov also randomly selected persons from voter registration lists who had previously voted in primary elections and contacted them by phone. A total of 24017 registered voters were contacted by phone and the YouGov sample includes 1821 phone recruits."

Registered voters... not even registered Republicans (they might have specified at least that).

Moreover, we have this.

'The bad news is that CBS and YouGov have teamed up to systematically overstate Trump’s support in pretty much every primary they have polled this year.

They predicted that Cruz would win Texas by 11% – he ended up winning by over 17%. They predicted that Trump would win Virginia by 13% – he ended up winning by less than 3%. They predicted that Trump would tie Kasich in Ohio, but he ended up losing by 11%. They predicted that Cruz would win Wisconsin by 6%, but he ended up winning by 13%.

In four of the seven primaries CBS News/YouGov have polled thus far, they have missed either Trump’s support or Cruz’s support (or both) outside the margin of error. Given that any polling company that misses on the margin of error more than one time out of every 20 has a systematic problem, we can safely assume that this latest poll from YouGov is likewise trash."


Don't worry, I am not a Cruz supporter.

I was just able to correctly read the entire Republican primary from the very start, using my knowledge of secret societies and their influence upon the electoral process.


For the California primary, you need this:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-ted-cruz-delegates-20160407-story.html

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/04/13/ted-cruz-win-california-primary-tom-del-beccaro/

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/03/27/new-california-poll-shows-tight-race-cruz-trump/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: junker on April 17, 2016, 10:27:47 PM
Oliver was also making the claim that Trump was being hypocritical when he attacked Jon Stewart for his name change from Leibowitz to Stewart.  Granted, the situations aren't the same, Stewart changed his while Trump's ancestor was the one who made the change. Without that attack on Stewart's name, I'd be surprised if Drumpf would have ever found the light of day.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4372969,00.html

Welcome back, DD.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on April 18, 2016, 10:06:00 AM
I don't understand why people think 'Drumpf' sounds funnier than 'Trump,' especially when the latter is a synonym for 'fart.'

To me, it is like "Of course, Donald Fart sounds like success, but would he have gotten so far with a name like 'Donald Farah?"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 20, 2016, 10:17:00 AM
Since there are only a few primaries left, we can calculate the total number of delegates alloted for each candidate, up until June 7:

Trump 964

Cruz 794

Kasich 178

That is, Trump will need to win at least 273 delegates, out of a total of 303, come June 7.

Let us update this count.

Trump 994 (we add 30 more NY delegates)

Cruz 764

(of course, the real count, where Trump loses all SC delegates, and other delegates from AR, LA and FL, is different)

What we have left is this:

California 172
Indiana 57
New Jersey 51
Washington 44
Maryland 38
Nebraska 36
West Virginia 34
South Dakota 29
Connecticut 28
Oregon 28
Montana 27
New Mexico 24
Rhode Island 19
Pennsylvania 17 +54
Delaware 16

red = very difficult states/delegates for Trump
yellow = tough campaign to gain at least a majority
orange = Christie's political machine

This leaves California, as the last place where any candidate can gain a significant number of delegates.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 20, 2016, 02:20:47 PM
Donald Trump's campaign violated the following federal regulations:

49 CFR § 229.46
49 CFR § 213.307
In particular, of 229.46:
(a) Before each trip, the railroad shall know the following: (1) The locomotive brakes and devices for regulating pressures, including but not limited to the automatic and independent brake control systems, operate as intended;
And 213.307:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and §§ 213.329, 213.337(a) and 213.345(c), the following maximum allowable operating speeds apply: […]

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 20, 2016, 04:53:39 PM
I believe we'll have a contested convention. 

I wish Paul Ryan wanted to run but I can understand why he wouldn't.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 22, 2016, 03:02:36 PM
NOT a Trump fan, but I WILL vote for over the Serial Liar or the Math Dropout.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 22, 2016, 03:24:59 PM
He wasn't naturalized.  He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen.  Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.  It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.

He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael" There's power in a name, Saddam, and using the right name at the right time and place can ruin a man; especially a man running on a platform of voters that aren't fond of foreigners.

nomen est omen

Then how the hell did someone named Barrack Hussein Obama get elected? His last name rhymed with OSAMA for Christ's sake! lol..

Ted Cruz has a lot more problems than his name. Obama showed that charm can get a lot of things overlooked. Cruz is about as likeable as a wet fart.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2016, 02:33:04 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on April 26, 2016, 01:46:50 PM
Math is hard.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 26, 2016, 02:46:48 PM
Math is hard.

Which is why FE supporters avoid it like rabies.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 27, 2016, 01:49:20 AM
Trump wins all five "Super Tuesday 3" states by over 50%

(http://pre09.deviantart.net/2804/th/pre/f/2016/117/5/2/the_donald_by_sharpwriter-da0eh6b.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2016, 06:21:56 AM
I think Shandokan is right: the GOP is going to have a contested convention just to stop Trump.

I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on April 27, 2016, 06:45:51 AM
I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.

He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2016, 07:24:18 AM
I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.

He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
I doubt it.  The berniebots hate Trump.  You can't make the rebels lkke Vader just because he's Luke's father.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on April 27, 2016, 07:41:52 AM
I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.

He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
I doubt it.  The berniebots hate Trump.  You can't make the rebels lkke Vader just because he's Luke's father.

You seriously underestimate how much Berniebots hate Hillary. I've seen countless Bernie supporters claim they would rather vote for Trump than Hillary. And even if we ignore the young Reddit crowd, it's undeniable that Trump supporters and Bernie supporters are largely intersectional - they both consist largely of anti-establishment libertarians. It's very likely that many of them will switch over to Trump, even if they disagree with his tone or policies.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2016, 09:35:26 AM
I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.

He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
I doubt it.  The berniebots hate Trump.  You can't make the rebels lkke Vader just because he's Luke's father.

You seriously underestimate how much Berniebots hate Hillary. I've seen countless Bernie supporters claim they would rather vote for Trump than Hillary. And even if we ignore the young Reddit crowd, it's undeniable that Trump supporters and Bernie supporters are largely intersectional - they both consist largely of anti-establishment libertarians. It's very likely that many of them will switch over to Trump, even if they disagree with his tone or policies.
That scares me.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 27, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Trump vs a congenital liar or vs a complete math failure? Who would not take Trump?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 27, 2016, 02:37:59 PM
Sanders' best chance as an independent would be him running on the same ticket with Trump. That would be devastating news for the Democrats.

I am still waiting to find out the reason why the GOP put up with Trump, so far, letting him run practically as an independent, while using their party as a platform.

Without Trump in the race, Cruz would have won easily by now; likewise, without Cruz, Trump would well be on his way to the general election, as the GOP nominee.

Cruz has behind him a very powerful secret society, which could have helped him to have performed much better in the NE, but chose not to.

Was it to create even more frustration in the case of Trump losing the nomination/contested election in Cleveland?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on April 27, 2016, 02:54:17 PM
I think at this point GOP won't even deny Trump the nomination in a contested convention, knowing that not doing so would disenfranchise the entire republican base and fracture the party. They're better off playing nice with Trump so he's more controllable and picks a conservative SCOTUS if elected.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 27, 2016, 03:39:47 PM

Cruz has behind him a very powerful secret society, which could have helped him to have performed much better in the NE, but chose not to

How can Cruz have a "secret society" behind him if you know and post about it?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2016, 04:33:29 PM

Cruz has behind him a very powerful secret society, which could have helped him to have performed much better in the NE, but chose not to

How can Cruz have a "secret society" behind him if you know and post about it?
Shandokhan knows everything.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 27, 2016, 04:50:32 PM
It is very easy to discern which secret societies are behind Cruz or Trump: look at their hand signs, and also decipher the following quotes:

Tonight Iowa has proclaimed to the world: morning is coming

T. Cruz


Donald is not going to make America great, he's going to make America orange

M. Rubio


They're better off playing nice with Trump so he's more controllable and picks a conservative SCOTUS if elected.

What you are implying is that the GOP had no way to control Trump, or to predict what was going to happen, and that Cruz is running a false campaign.

Or that they will accept the potential loss of both the Senate and the House in November, just to play nice to Trump.

Or that they do not know that nine out of ten hispanics view Trump unfavorably.

Trump's promises/foreign policy run contrary to everything the GOP has stood for in the past twenty years or so.

This is the reason why I think something else is going on, an unfolding of events which will become clearer the closer we get to November.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 27, 2016, 05:03:47 PM
For all the new people here, please keep in mind Levee (Sandohkn) will ramble endlessly. Please don't bait him or purposely delve into a discussion about the knights Templar, Masons, and other irrelevant garbage or I will remove it from this thread and I will punish YOU not him. Thank you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 27, 2016, 05:07:14 PM
It is very easy to discern which secret societies are behind Cruz or Trump: look at their hand signs, and also decipher the following quotes:

Tonight Iowa has proclaimed to the world: morning is coming

T. Cruz


Donald is not going to make America great, he's going to make America orange

M. Rubio


They're better off playing nice with Trump so he's more controllable and picks a conservative SCOTUS if elected.

What you are implying is that the GOP had no way to control Trump, or to predict what was going to happen, and that Cruz is running a false campaign.

Or that they will accept the potential loss of both the Senate and the House in November, just to play nice to Trump.

Or that they do not know that nine out of ten hispanics view Trump unfavorably.

Trump's promises/foreign policy run contrary to everything the GOP has stood for in the past twenty years or so.

This is the reason why I think something else is going on, an unfolding of events which will become clearer the closer we get to November.

The rank and file GOP got fed up and start the Tea Party. The GOP instead of embracing the movement, which was what het GOP was in the beginning, moved further left and enlisted the help the Dim, er ha Dems and stomped the Tea Party flat.

Well, along comes Trump with is own money, owing no one in power in the GOP. He is not Tea Party but enough so that he is being taken seriously. The GOP has no one to blame but themselves.

The voters don't want Dim lite, they want a strict Constitutional Republican form of government.

I want a closed boarder, lower taxes, the government out of my health care (BummerCare as cost me a 1,238% increase in costs). The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8. I want draconian term limits, as it 12 years in Congress PERIOD and if you want to go from the House to the Senate you MUST resign the office you hold. If you lose the election that is it you're done. You just term limited yourself out FOREVER. I want clean bills with not riders. You can't attach a bill for FBI funding on a Defense Bill. Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8) No more Executive Orders. Article 1Section 1 Clause 1. No more signing of bills saying what  will be enforced or not. A law is a law is a law. Otherwise veto it and get a bill you want. That is just for starters
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 27, 2016, 05:20:00 PM
David Duke did endorse Trump, that is a fact.

It is also a fact that, because of this endorsement Trump was able to win many of the Southern states.

I leave it to the reader to find out, using his/her own research, which secret society DD belong to.

The only rambling in this thread has been the constant and naive assumption, made by Rushy, that Trump's campaign would be something else than creating a false hope of political novelty.

I made the call from the very start, that Cruz and Trump will be the last candidates standing: I was able to do this based on my knowledge of various secret societies, and their influence on American politics.

Rushy, a question for you: why would the GOP allow Trump to run an independent campaign using their party as a platform?

Do you really know how Trump got started in the gambling operations? Go ahead and find out who was behind the Resorts International company.


The rank and file GOP got fed up and start the Tea Party.

That maybe so, but then what you are saying is that Trump's candidacy is a covert operation run by the GOP.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 27, 2016, 05:25:21 PM
And, in order not to be accused of "derailing" this thread, I will not post another message here until July (Cleveland convention).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 27, 2016, 09:38:58 PM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 27, 2016, 09:49:37 PM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.

The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many time. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.

I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures  for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2016, 06:46:53 AM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.

The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many time. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.

I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures  for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
Unless I'm mistaken, the founding fathers originally had the Articles of Confederation which was too weak to keep a federal government intact or useful.  So pardon me for not giving 18th century people fresh from revolution absolute faith in their ability to plan for 200 years in the future.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on April 28, 2016, 01:10:11 PM
David Duke did endorse Trump, that is a fact.

Don't the Knights Templar and Free Masons endorse Trump too?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 28, 2016, 01:11:56 PM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.

The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many times. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.

I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures  for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
Unless I'm mistaken, the founding fathers originally had the Articles of Confederation which was too weak to keep a federal government intact or useful.  So pardon me for not giving 18th century people fresh from revolution absolute faith in their ability to plan for 200 years in the future.

You need to go back and do some research on the reason for the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were indeed weak. They allowed the States to do things to each other that would over time have destroyed the United States and the reason the Senate and House were elected by TWO different election processes. The CA  also did not protect the citizens form the government. The Constitution does, or did, until people started saying it said things it doesn't and ignoring what the writers said it meant.

Then there is the cherry picking of what  to support and why. The out of context of Jefferson's "Separation of Church and State," quoted by the anti-religious. Far to many people believe the phrase is actually part of the Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment. But if you quote Jefferson on the Right to bear arms, those same leftist will scream he was a racist slave owner and his words are from Satan himself.  And God help anyone that points out Jefferson attempted to end slavery with 2nd Continental Congress, and later in Va House of Burgess and as POTUS. On that the left says ALL the history books are wrong.

The real problem is we don't, and have not for a long time, teach our own history. We spend our time examining their warts, instead of what they accomplished, then use those warts to mangle our laws into something we want.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2016, 02:18:01 PM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.

The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many times. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.

I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures  for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
Unless I'm mistaken, the founding fathers originally had the Articles of Confederation which was too weak to keep a federal government intact or useful.  So pardon me for not giving 18th century people fresh from revolution absolute faith in their ability to plan for 200 years in the future.

You need to go back and do some research on the reason for the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were indeed weak. They allowed the States to do things to each other that would over time have destroyed the United States and the reason the Senate and House were elected by TWO different election processes. The CA  also did not protect the citizens form the government. The Constitution does, or did, until people started saying it said things it doesn't and ignoring what the writers said it meant.

Then there is the cherry picking of what  to support and why. The out of context of Jefferson's "Separation of Church and State," quoted by the anti-religious. Far to many people believe the phrase is actually part of the Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment. But if you quote Jefferson on the Right to bear arms, those same leftist will scream he was a racist slave owner and his words are from Satan himself.  And God help anyone that points out Jefferson attempted to end slavery with 2nd Continental Congress, and later in Va House of Burgess and as POTUS. On that the left says ALL the history books are wrong.

The real problem is we don't, and have not for a long time, teach our own history. We spend our time examining their warts, instead of what they accomplished, then use those warts to mangle our laws into something we want.

You'll find hate mongers on both sides.  I'm a leftist and would not say Jefferson was Satan. 

It should be noted that the constitution is setup to be altered so by altering it, we are doing as the founders expected.  Same with SCOTUS, they interprite the constitution.  If you don't like the new laws or their decisions, then sorry but thats what the constitution allows.  Want it fixed?  Do it yourself.

As for history: what do you expect?  America is full of hateful, greedy, evil people but we want to teach our kids happy things.  We don't like talking about Japanes internment camps.  We don't like talking about taking lands from the indians.  We prefer to say Columbus was a hero and so brave.  He was neither.

Though... Why would we need warts to mangle laws to what we want?  We CHANGE laws to what we want.  The constitution lets us do this.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 29, 2016, 01:40:45 AM
Trump now has 994 delegates. Fox News released a new poll that reveals Trump is +27 in California.

Hillary Clinton has 2165 delegates. She is polling +2 over Sanders in California. Keep in mind the California primary is not until June.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/04/22/fox-news-poll-california-presidential-primaries/

Also, a new Oregon Poll that shows Trump as +17

http://res.cloudinary.com/bdy4ger4/image/upload/v1461878385/Hoffman_0416_Survey_Report_iapoi3.pdf

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 03, 2016, 11:12:47 PM
Trump wins Indiana and now has 1059 delegates (number includes unbound delegates that have pledged to support Trump). Trump now requires 37% of the remaining delegates to earn the nomination.

Hillary Sanders wins Indiana and now has 1400 delegates (number includes superdelegates pledged to support Sanders). Sanders requires 79% of the remaining delegates to earn the nomination.


Delegate numbers may change as vote counts are finalized.

Ted Cruz has officially suspended his campaign. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out-of-the-republican-presidential-race/2016/05/03/8f955a06-0fe7-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for 2016. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus says the party should now focus on defeating Hillary Clinton. https://mobile.twitter.com/Reince/status/727665447684820992
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: junker on May 04, 2016, 02:24:12 AM
And Cruz has thrown in the towel...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on May 04, 2016, 02:27:11 AM
I want to know how this fits into sandokhan's calculations
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on May 04, 2016, 02:32:38 AM
I want to know how this fits into sandokhan's calculations
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on May 04, 2016, 06:24:47 AM
I want to know how this fits into sandokhan's calculations
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: junker on May 04, 2016, 04:13:47 PM
Kasich saw Cruz's towel and raised him one white flag.

I guess neither have been paying their dues to the secret society.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 04, 2016, 04:38:56 PM
t r u m p
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on May 04, 2016, 04:55:23 PM
T R U M P
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on May 06, 2016, 09:56:15 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can't Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 09, 2016, 03:37:35 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on May 09, 2016, 03:56:51 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on May 09, 2016, 03:59:21 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Maybe they support The Serial Liar or Can't Count.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on May 09, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
Crooked Hilary and lying Ted will bow before the God-Emperor.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 09, 2016, 05:33:19 PM
Crooked Hilary and lying Ted will bow before the God-Emperor.

They will BEND THE KNEE
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on May 09, 2016, 05:58:34 PM
Trump's "campaign" thus far is a publicity stunt, not an attempt for political office. Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing.

That said, Hillary Clinton looks like the best likely candidate. As great as Bernie would be, it's not realistic to expect him to win a general election.

How's Trumps candidacy looking at this point Ben? With DNC shooting themselves in the foot by alienating independent voters, I've seen way more Bernie supporters tell me they will vote for Trump if Hillary wins than anything else. Also, I think #bernieorbust is out trending #nevertrump. At this point I think it's not realistic to expect Mrs. Clinton to win a general election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on May 09, 2016, 06:13:47 PM
Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were.  I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 09, 2016, 06:24:19 PM
Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were.  I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.

Trump didn't have any previous campaigns. He sometimes announced himself for giggles, but never participated in debates or actually held rallies.

Trump trademarked "make America great again" in November 2012. This campaign success was hardly the accident you or anyone else continually claims it is.

It's okay.

Trump is smarter than you.
Trump has more friends than you.
Trump has more money than you.
Trump's family line makes yours look like a line of homeless people.

Saddam, like all non-successful people, really wants to see Trump's success as a complete accident. In Saddam's mind, you can never be successful of your own volition. It's always a happy accident.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 12, 2016, 09:54:18 AM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Maybe they support The Serial Liar or Can't Count.
No, I was mostly commenting on how your message doesn't consist of a single coherent sentence. Originally I hoped you're just spamming copypasta, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were.  I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.
lol you're still trying.

Saddam. It's okay. You were wrong. We were right. It's not a big deal. It's a thing that happens. You don't have to keep defending yourself every time something doesn't go your way. Shrug it off and move on.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on May 12, 2016, 10:45:44 AM
Shrug it off and move on.
If only he were capable.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on May 12, 2016, 11:32:39 AM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Maybe they support The Serial Liar or Can't Count.
No, I was mostly commenting on how your message doesn't consist of a single coherent sentence. Originally I hoped you're just spamming copypasta, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were.  I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.
lol you're still trying.

Saddam. It's okay. You were wrong. We were right. It's not a big deal. It's a thing that happens. You don't have to keep defending yourself every time something doesn't go your way. Shrug it off and move on.

Except for my naming Clinton Serial Liar and Sanders Can't Count. what I posted is clear. Where live, do they offer adult reading classes?

Edited because Simon and Schuster have been employed here as spelling and grammar Nazis
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on May 12, 2016, 11:43:25 AM
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Archived for later commemoration in the meme history of FES
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on May 12, 2016, 12:03:03 PM
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Archived for later commemoration in the meme history of FES
XD. Classic!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 12, 2016, 01:50:49 PM
Except for my naming Clinton Serial Liar and Sanders Can't Count. what I posted is clear. Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
Sigh, okay, let's go through your post step by step:

Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.
"Can Count Sanders"? What can he count? Why is that an insult?

That tells me was not going along to get along.
What? "That tells me not going along to along"? Are you trying to say something along the lines of "That tells me he was not going to get along with the Republican establishment"?

that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.
"That are will stand castrate the opposition"? Look, I'm not1 going to bash you for not speaking English as a first language, but please try to proofread your posts before publishing them.

And finally:
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
Sig'd. That was too good.


1 - lol joke's on you I'm definitely going to bash you
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2016, 03:40:08 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on May 12, 2016, 04:32:16 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???

And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2016, 04:50:09 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???

And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?

That is a direct response to Round Fact's statement. I didn't imply any kind of refutation of any argument, merely asked a question. Please learn what a straw man is before throwing around accusations.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 12, 2016, 09:48:54 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???

And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?

That is a direct response to Round Fact's statement. I didn't imply any kind of refutation of any argument, merely asked a question. Please learn what a straw man is before throwing around accusations.

Pongo is right. You made an irrelevant strawman. A very bad one, nonetheless. Hardly deserving of "strawman of 2016" award.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on May 13, 2016, 03:27:04 AM
Comparing Trump favorably to someone described as a "serial liar" does carry the implication that Trump isn't a liar.  That being said, Hillary has been accused of lying about matters far more serious than whether or not Trump was mocking a disabled journalist or if he knew who David Duke was, so I understand where the comparison is coming from.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on May 13, 2016, 01:55:36 PM
Quote
"Can Count Sanders"? What can he count? Why is that an insult

Sanders believes he can provide “free” heath care and other free services.

Never mind that raising taxes means it is not free. How he says he can pay for this “Free” service is mathematically impossible. At a rally, he told a questioner that he could raise everyone’s taxes $500, and that would pay for everyone’s health care.

The IRS says there are 216 million taxpayers. The US Census says there are 320 million citizens.  That works out to $28.12 per person covered, per month.  Even before the massive increases ObamaCare inflicted (and is not done doing so) my coverage is more than 8 times that high for each member of this house hold. So far the promised $2,500 in "savings" has seen an increase of 1,238% to date. “Free” is going to skyrocket that at an unbelievable rate.

Hence, Sanders cannot count.


Quote
What? "That tells me not going along to along"? Are you trying to say something along the lines of "That tells me he was not going to get along with the Republican establishment"

It means he is not Dem lite, as is most of the rest of GOP. That is a good thing in my book. He is more interested in serving the people, and is not afraid to stand up the establishment GOP.


Quote
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

He who has never fat fingered a post is free to cast the first stone. I was not aware this site was edited by Simon and Shuster.  However, I’ll edit the post for spelling. Got to keep the spelling and grammar Nazis happy.


Quote
I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty?

Where in my post did I imply such a thing? What I DID say, was Trump was preferable to Clinton.  ::)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2016, 09:31:59 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281556-trump-decides-he-wont-debate-bernie-sanders

It's a shame he back-tracked but such is life.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 27, 2016, 10:37:44 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281556-trump-decides-he-wont-debate-bernie-sanders

It's a shame he back-tracked but such is life.

That's disappointing, but I don't blame him. Debating a candidate that lost three months ago isn't the best use of time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on May 27, 2016, 10:44:40 PM
Not a good move by the Don. Probably the first real blunder in his campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 27, 2016, 11:01:04 PM
Not a good move by the Don. Probably the first real blunder in his campaign.

Nearly everything he does is a theoretical political blunder. Somehow it ends up working in his favor. We'll see if this goes the same way.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on May 28, 2016, 03:05:14 AM
Gotta love how Berniebots are taking this though. The debate would have been an unprecedented event in US political history and yet they act like they were entitled to it. So Trump is respectful if he extends an olive branch, but a coward if he doesn't? They're so disingenuous it's unreal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2016, 09:53:08 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/north-korean-newspaper-endorses-wise-donald-trump-dull/story?id=39500755

It's only an editorial so take that as you will, but it IS on the state run newspaper so it must have been allowed.

But it makes sense.  Trump apparently feels that South Korea should pay the US more protection money and North Korea feels that's a great idea.  Mostly because it might mean the US will stop protecting the South Koreans.

If that happens, President Trump would be a hero to all of North Korea!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2016, 01:16:17 PM
Or maybe south Korea will actually start paying more for their own protection.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2016, 02:29:11 PM
Or maybe south Korea will actually start paying more for their own protection.
Maybe!

Maybe that's trump's economic plan: protection racket?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 01, 2016, 02:45:02 PM
trump: "south korea pays us nothing for our troops presence."

not-retarded people: "um, they pick up about 30% of the tab, to the tune of ~$800 million dollars, and that percentage has been increasing over time."

trump: "whoops, i meant to say that we don't get any benefit from the money we spend."

nrp: "protecting our national security interests, as well as those of our allies, is a direct benefit to the us."

trump: "whoops, i meant to say that we don't get very much benefit from the money we spend."

nrp: "um...ok...hit us up when you have something of substance to say about anything at all."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2016, 05:18:30 PM
Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2016, 05:37:06 PM
Of course ignoring that the USA should bear some of the cost since they hold an interest in keeping North Korea in check, this is nothing more than capitalism at work.  If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2016, 05:38:09 PM
If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.
Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2016, 05:47:01 PM
If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.
Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?

Are you asking if I think the USA should withdraw from South Korea?  If so, then not really, I would rather they get more stakeholders in the region to take lead on it though.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 01, 2016, 07:28:40 PM
Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US

if us foreign policy ever becomes this shortsighted, then the joke will definitely be on us
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2016, 11:01:14 PM
If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.
Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?

Are you asking if I think the USA should withdraw from South Korea?  If so, then not really, I would rather they get more stakeholders in the region to take lead on it though.

There are many reasons to pull the installations from South Korea. One being that they're an absolute mess to begin with and can't protect South Korea from a North Korean invasion even if they wanted to. The facilities there are atrocious and a waste of human resources.

Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US

if us foreign policy ever becomes this shortsighted, then the joke will definitely be on us

Are you agreeing now that China is an enemy of the US? North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!" The world has gone so upside down that the FES leftists are now arguing for unadulterated military spending.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 02, 2016, 02:26:49 AM
In other news, merely attempting to speak about Trump causes the gears in President Obama's head to seize up entirely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxo9-Z5Ki0
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on June 02, 2016, 02:30:18 AM
Obama can't talk at all without a teleprompter. Sad!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 03, 2016, 12:59:53 AM
Are you agreeing now that China is an enemy of the US? North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!" The world has gone so upside down that the FES leftists are now arguing for unadulterated military spending.

lol "leftist."  adorable.

forgive me if i'm unwilling to take your word for it that north korea is no threat to seoul.  honestly, you can't possibly be claiming to know what north korea is capable of, or possibly think you can predict the future of relations on the peninsula for the next 10, 20, 30, 50 years, etc.

seoul is an invaluable financial and political asset for the us.  guaranteeing its security is a no-brainer.  there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the best way to go about that, but that conversation will never involve trump, a candidate serially committed to not being even remotely interested in whether or not the things he's saying are true.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 03, 2016, 01:34:47 AM
The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.

The installation is for China, not Korea, and you told me China isn't a US enemy, so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 03, 2016, 02:31:09 PM
North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!"

The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.

ruminate on this one for a bit.

so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?

the big deal is that we stand to gain very little and lose a great deal.  at best we recoup maybe $2 billion.  the us spends like $3,000 billion/year.  also how are we going to force seoul to 'foot the entire bill'?  what if they say no?  we bail?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 03, 2016, 02:54:28 PM
North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!"

The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.

ruminate on this one for a bit.

so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?

the big deal is that we stand to gain very little and lose a great deal.  at best we recoup maybe $2 billion.  the us spends like $3,000 billion/year.  also how are we going to force seoul to 'foot the entire bill'?  what if they say no?  we bail?

Hmm, your argument is that we shouldn't attempt to save money anywhere because we spend lots of money everywhere. Good one.

Also, you might want to further explain your points. If you want just quote me and say "ruminate on this" I'm going to assume you have no worthwhile argument.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on June 03, 2016, 03:26:59 PM
Thinking about it, I think its brilliant.

We pull funding.  NK invades.  We claim protection and attack NK, wiping them out and claiming the land as New America.  Tons of cheap labor.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 03, 2016, 03:51:03 PM
Hmm, your argument is that we shouldn't attempt to save money anywhere because we spend lots of money everywhere. Good one.

keep misconstruing my argument if you like.  you are manufacturing some good zingers.  my argument was that the opportunity-cost to abandoning the korean peninsula is probably greater than saving 0.06% of yearly spending.  i know you're smart enough to understand fractions.

"seoul is an invaluable financial and political asset for the us.  guaranteeing its security is a no-brainer.  there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the best way to go about that, but that conversation will never involve trump, a candidate serially committed to not being even remotely interested in whether or not the things he's saying are true."

i don't really give a shit that he wants to change our foreign policy toward south korea.  i care that he has any clue at all what our foreign policy toward south korea currently is, and i care that he's completely willing to pretend that he does without any apparent self-motivation to fill those gaps in his knowledge.  he just says a bunch of shit that isn't true, gets corrected, says a bunch of new shit that isn't true, gets corrected again, and on and on and on.  but whatever as long as it's super populist and angry then that's cool.

Also, you might want to further explain your points. If you want just quote me and say "ruminate on this" I'm going to assume you have no worthwhile argument.

you started by saying that north korea is a joke, and no one could support the argument that we stay because north korea is a threat, and then ended by saying that north korea is an existential threat to seoul.  i dunno how to reconcile those two things. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 04, 2016, 08:39:22 PM
keep misconstruing my argument if you like.  you are manufacturing some good zingers.  my argument was that the opportunity-cost to abandoning the korean peninsula is probably greater than saving 0.06% of yearly spending.  i know you're smart enough to understand fractions.

"It's just a few billion dollars, man, no big deal." If we look at every budget constraint and say "well, gee, it's only 0.06% of the budget" then surprise! The budget never changes and we go into debt.

"seoul is an invaluable financial and political asset for the us.  guaranteeing its security is a no-brainer.  there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the best way to go about that, but that conversation will never involve trump, a candidate serially committed to not being even remotely interested in whether or not the things he's saying are true."

Guaranteeing security for whom against what? Are we trying to intimidate someone into doing or not doing something?

i don't really give a shit that he wants to change our foreign policy toward south korea.  i care that he has any clue at all what our foreign policy toward south korea currently is, and i care that he's completely willing to pretend that he does without any apparent self-motivation to fill those gaps in his knowledge.  he just says a bunch of shit that isn't true, gets corrected, says a bunch of new shit that isn't true, gets corrected again, and on and on and on.  but whatever as long as it's super populist and angry then that's cool.

It's pretty clear you don't know anything about what's going on in Korea, either, which is why you're confused about:

you started by saying that north korea is a joke, and no one could support the argument that we stay because north korea is a threat, and then ended by saying that North Korea is an existential threat to Seoul.  i dunno how to reconcile those two things.

North Korea is theoretically an existential threat, yes, in the same way that China, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, UK, etc. are also existential threats to the world. North Korea could vaporize all of its neighbors. However, the DPRK is not verging on a murder-suicide, no matter how many times you read about it on whatever garbage it is you get your news from. They are a joke and do not warrant the absolute waste of human and materiel resources in the country.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 07, 2016, 03:34:57 AM
"It's just a few billion dollars, man, no big deal." If we look at every budget constraint and say "well, gee, it's only 0.06% of the budget" then surprise! The budget never changes and we go into debt.

you're still misunderstanding my argument.  i'm not saying that any amount of spending on anything is fine.  i'm saying that the net value of this spending is positive because it secures our access to an economic asset that is worth more to our budget than we spend to secure it.

North Korea is theoretically an existential threat, yes, in the same way that China, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, UK, etc. are also existential threats to the world. North Korea could vaporize all of its neighbors. However, the DPRK is not verging on a murder-suicide, no matter how many times you read about it on whatever garbage it is you get your news from. They are a joke and do not warrant the absolute waste of human and materiel resources in the country.

lol if you insist.  sounds like you've got it all worked out.  tbh you read more and more like trump everyday.  i'm incompetent, whatever i read is written by incompetent people (personal fav), the dprk is incompetent, everyone involved in us foreign policy toward korea since the war is incompetent, etc.  yawn.

like i said, i do not share your confidence in your ability to predict the future of relations on the peninsula over the next 10, 20, 30, etc. years.  that the dprk does not have a death wish is hardly sufficient in an of itself to prevent conflict.  see: world history.

also, the dprk is not china, pakistan, india, israel, russia, or the uk.  i'm surprised you made the comparison.  among the virtually endless supply of differences is that those nations are allies, and we cooperate with them on not blowing each other up, both diplomatically and materially.  if the dprk ever decides to behave toward us in a manner even remotely resembling those allies, then yeah, i'll probably agree that we don't need to house our own reaction forces on the peninsula anymore. 

or whatever russia != threat therefore dprk != threat that's probably right
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 07, 2016, 11:44:05 PM
you're still misunderstanding my argument.  i'm not saying that any amount of spending on anything is fine.  i'm saying that the net value of this spending is positive because it secures our access to an economic asset that is worth more to our budget than we spend to secure it.

The net impact of the actual money being sent to South Korea is extremely small (going in line with you noting it's only a few billion!) North Korea isn't staying out of South Korea just because the US has people there, since they could easily kill all of those people. North Korea is staying out of South Korea because North Korea knows North Korea will stop existing if they ever do happen to invade South Korea.

The world avoids North Korea because it is a political disaster, not a military threat.

russia != threat therefore dprk != threat that's probably right

Russia is much more of a threat than DPRK is. Russia could theoretically strike out at other nations and still remain a stable nation. You seem to have swallowed some fantastical "North Korean bogeyman" garbage.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 08, 2016, 06:36:18 PM
North Korea is the bad guy because they aren't involved or in bed with any central zionist controlled banking infrastructure. Same way Gidaffi was a bad guy all of a sudden and got nixed. Assad is a bad guy for the same reasons.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 08, 2016, 07:50:01 PM
TheThorkIsOnHere

Gaddafi was only "all of a sudden" a bad guy to people who were weren't paying to world affairs and/or didn't know their history.  He was very bad news and had been for many years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 08, 2016, 08:45:27 PM
TheThorkIsOnHere

Gaddafi was only "all of a sudden" a bad guy to people who were weren't paying to world affairs and/or didn't know their history.  He was very bad news and had been for many years.

Was it the gold backed currency (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/anthony-wile-gaddafi-planned-gold-dinar-now-under-attack/) he proposed for the African Union? Or the Man Made river project (that nato bombed (https://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/27/great-man-made-river-nato-bombs/))which was so nefarious?

I don't get the thork reference
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2016, 09:05:23 PM
Yeah, he was not the axe-wielding mad man the US made him out to be. A dictator, yes, but one that did a lot of good things with his power.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 08, 2016, 09:31:14 PM
Most middle eastern dictators were the direct result of populations that could only be kept in check by totalitarianism. Their culture is accustomed to brutal, rigid structures. Just walking in, deposing the dictator and saying "be free, people, be free!" has proven time and time again to be a terrible idea.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2016, 09:55:19 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 08, 2016, 10:12:39 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2016, 10:21:45 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.

I was agreeing with you, retart.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 08, 2016, 11:00:38 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.

I was agreeing with you, retart.

Oh. muh bad
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 09, 2016, 03:32:22 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.

I was agreeing with you, retart.

Oh. muh bad

There's actually a lot of people who believe the Arab Springs were a direct result of covert American influence. Basically a destabilization of the region, because it doesn't really matter to US Policy who is in control, as long as there is civil war and unrest intermittently.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on June 09, 2016, 03:43:09 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.

I was agreeing with you, retart.

Oh. muh bad

There's actually a lot of people who believe the Arab Springs were a direct result of covert American influence. Basically a destabilization of the region, because it doesn't really matter to US Policy who is in control, as long as there is civil war and unrest intermittently.

Helps drive up oil prices.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 09, 2016, 05:30:38 PM
The net impact of the actual money being sent to South Korea is extremely small (going in line with you noting it's only a few billion!) North Korea isn't staying out of South Korea just because the US has people there, since they could easily kill all of those people. North Korea is staying out of South Korea because North Korea knows North Korea will stop existing if they ever do happen to invade South Korea.

The world avoids North Korea because it is a political disaster, not a military threat.

let's hope that the dprk always assesses the situation exactly as you do from your armchair in tennessee or whatever.  i can't think of any conflicts that ignited over miscalculations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Course_of_the_war), or the ideological obsessions of dictators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), or random and unpredictable events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Sarajevo_assassination), or some other nonsense altogether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait)...can you?

Russia is much more of a threat than DPRK is. Russia could theoretically strike out at other nations and still remain a stable nation. You seem to have swallowed some fantastical "North Korean bogeyman" garbage.

so now we're on to russia = threat therefore dprk != threat?  awesome.  hey dummy: there two things aren't related.  our foreign policy toward russia doesn't have to be the same as our foreign policy toward north korea.  they probably shouldn't be, since, again, russia is an ally.

south korea is also an ally, and a valuable one at that.  we probably shouldn't follow trump's advice to extort them to save a measly 0.06% of our budget.  that's dumb. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/with-trump-the-united-states-would-be-a-weaker-power/article29959459/)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 09, 2016, 08:58:55 PM
russia is an ally.

Well, besides that whole pesky proxy war thing in Syria and Ukraine.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 09, 2016, 10:17:12 PM
let's hope that the dprk always assesses the situation exactly as you do from your armchair in tennessee or whatever.  i can't think of any conflicts that ignited over miscalculations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Course_of_the_war), or the ideological obsessions of dictators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), or random and unpredictable events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Sarajevo_assassination), or some other nonsense altogether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait)...can you?

All of those events were perpetrated by countries that had reasonable chances of winning the war. If the DPRK attack South Korea, everyone loses, regardless of how many billions or even trillions of dollars we put into South Korea.

What is your argument at this point? Do you believe that an American base in South Korea makes a crazy, unpredictable DPRK less likely to nuke Seoul? We already have nuclear retaliation treaties with South Korea. If they nuke South Korea we nuke them right back. No amount of American troops in South Korea would affect Korean War 2: Electric Boogaloo.

so now we're on to russia = threat therefore dprk != threat?  awesome.  hey dummy: there two things aren't related.  our foreign policy toward russia doesn't have to be the same as our foreign policy toward north korea.  they probably shouldn't be, since, again, russia is an ally.

south korea is also an ally, and a valuable one at that.  we probably shouldn't follow trump's advice to extort them to save a measly 0.06% of our budget.  that's dumb. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/with-trump-the-united-states-would-be-a-weaker-power/article29959459/)

China is our ally... Russia is our ally... but DPRK is a multi-billion dollar threat and we can't afford to not have troops stationed on its border 24/7!

Good god, man, at least tell me you're just trolling.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 09, 2016, 10:22:53 PM
Okay, so garygreen got me in my own thread. Haha. Good one guys.

We all know its Trump vs Hillary now. Bernie is setting himself up to tear the DNC convention apart. I give it a 80% chance of having violent riots.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 10, 2016, 12:02:16 AM
All of those events were perpetrated by countries that had reasonable chances of winning the war. If the DPRK attack South Korea, everyone loses, regardless of how many billions or even trillions of dollars we put into South Korea.

right.  events that were beyond their control motivated them to start wars they thought they could win, even though at least 2 of those conflicts (both germanys) were almost certainly completely un-winnable by the instigators and lacked internal consensus that war was the appropriate course of action.

your whole argument rests on the bizarre premise that kim jong un and the dprk are always going to assess things the way you do and could never be motivated by irrationality or external forces.  that's asinine.

What is your argument at this point? Do you believe that an American base in South Korea makes a crazy, unpredictable DPRK less likely to nuke Seoul?

my argument is that trump is a retard with a retard proposal to extort our allies our of some petty cash, and no one should take seriously the inane ramblings of someone who isn't even really interested in learning who pays for what, or what we get in return, or any other fact that will impede on his bloviating on what an idiot everyone else is.  it's actually kinda beautiful in its way.

i think it's exceedingly unlikely that north korea will ever nuke anyone.  but yeah, nuking us soldiers is obviously going to elicit a stronger response from the us than nuking south korean soldiers.  it's more about deterring conventional conflict.  we deter north korea, but also we exert control over south korean forces that are also capable of starting a conflict.  as a bonus, we get to deter north korea from conflicts with other neighbors besides south korea simply by having a strong presence in the region and establishing those neighbors as us interests.

china and russia and the dprk

i'm loving this.  keep going.  i only want to hear more about how comparable our relationships with russia and china are to the dprk.

fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk, even confined solely to the subject of "let's not war with each other," then you're hopeless. 

i don't even get why we're talking about russia and china since i don't think i ever said anything like "anyone with a strong military force or nuclear weapons requires a us military presence as close to them as possible no matter what the cost."  i mean, you keep pretending that i do, but i've not actually said anything like that.

oh and add "north korea is the most terrifying and powerful hegemon on the planet" to the list of shit i haven't said at all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 10, 2016, 02:21:59 AM
right.  events that were beyond their control motivated them to start wars they thought they could win, even though at least 2 of those conflicts (both germanys) were almost certainly completely un-winnable by the instigators and lacked internal consensus that war was the appropriate course of action.

your whole argument rests on the bizarre premise that kim jong un and the dprk are always going to assess things the way you do and could never be motivated by irrationality or external forces.  that's asinine.

A rational actor would not attack South Korea at all. An irrational actor would attack South Korea regardless of US presence. Tell me, what exactly is the US presence supposed to be doing if Kim Jong-un is just a nutter who is willing to get himself and his country destroyed regardless of the consequences?

my argument is that trump is a retard with a retard proposal to extort our allies our of some petty cash, and no one should take seriously the inane ramblings of someone who isn't even really interested in learning who pays for what, or what we get in return, or any other fact that will impede on his bloviating on what an idiot everyone else is.  it's actually kinda beautiful in its way.

i think it's exceedingly unlikely that north korea will ever nuke anyone.  but yeah, nuking us soldiers is obviously going to elicit a stronger response from the us than nuking south korean soldiers.  it's more about deterring conventional conflict.  we deter north korea, but also we exert control over south korean forces that are also capable of starting a conflict.  as a bonus, we get to deter north korea from conflicts with other neighbors besides south korea simply by having a strong presence in the region and establishing those neighbors as us interests.

Asking people to pay for a service provided isn't extortion. Other countries can afford extravagant social and education programs because a completely different country is absorbing their defense costs. It's time they pay up a few billion dollars at a time. I mean, it's just "petty cash," right?

i'm loving this.  keep going.  i only want to hear more about how comparable our relationships with russia and china are to the dprk.

Oh, please. This is just embarrassing.

fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk, even confined solely to the subject of "let's not war with each other," then you're hopeless. 

We'd "cooperate" with North Korea too, if they actually had anything worth having.

i don't even get why we're talking about russia and china since i don't think i ever said anything like "anyone with a strong military force or nuclear weapons requires a us military presence as close to them as possible no matter what the cost."  i mean, you keep pretending that i do, but i've not actually said anything like that.

(http://sli.mg/GkCqWm.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 10, 2016, 03:07:36 PM
which do you think is more likely to elicit a military response from the united states: dead south korean soldiers, or dead american soldiers?

A rational actor would not attack South Korea at all.
if you would take the time to actually read the content of my posts, you'd find that this is the statement i've been disagreeing with for 2 pages now.  rational people can disagree about things.  rational people can make miscalculations.  rational people can be influenced by emotions, ideology, appeals to concepts like justice/retaliation/whatever, etc.  your argument rests on the idea that all rational people see the the same way: the way you see them.  that's not an argument; it's just ego.

please stop pretending that all rational people always agree with each other about what is most rational.  how do you not realize that the implication of that belief is that everyone who disagrees with you is either crazy or just trying to annoy you?

An irrational actor would attack South Korea regardless of US presence. Tell me, what exactly is the US presence supposed to be doing if Kim Jong-un is just a nutter who is willing to get himself and his country destroyed regardless of the consequences?
here's a scenario: without a us presence on the peninsula, the dprk could be more emboldened to attack more south korean ships with sub attacks, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) or plant more landmines on the sk side of the border (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/world/asia/north-korea-placed-mines-that-maimed-2-south-korean-soldiers-at-dmz-seoul-says.html), or whatever.  i mean i know a rational actor would not attack south korea at all lol, but setting that aside, suppose south korea gets all pissy and finally decides to hulk out on north korea.  so they get into a bunch of shit, and north korea goes all guerrilla war, and then maybe china or russia or both decide to start materially aiding the dprk and the peninsula is now up to its dick in a new korean war.  or something along those lines.

to be clear, i'm not saying that absolutely 100% would definitely happen in exactly that manner, but it's obviously not hard to think of some scenarios in which a us military presence would be a useful means of de-escalating south korea from going to war.  sunk warships are exactly the kind of event that causes otherwise "rational actors" to make less-than-optimal decisions.

Asking people to pay for a service provided isn't extortion. Other countries can afford extravagant social and education programs because a completely different country is absorbing their defense costs. It's time they pay up a few billion dollars at a time. I mean, it's just "petty cash," right?
right.  compared to our budget, it's small change.  sk isn't fueling their university system by saving $2bln on military expenses, and our healthcare system isn't $2bln away from being top of its class.  so imagine the audacity of actually phoning up an ally and saying, "give us $2bln or we're going to take our security forces and go home."  forget about the utility of the troops: it's just a fucked up thing to do to a nation we call friends.  we've promised to guarantee their security, and keeping us troops there is as much about the gesture as it is anything else.  it signals to both koreas that we are serious about protecting these allies, a signal that probably could have prevented the first korean war.  that was a HUGE contributing factor of the first korean war: sung incorrectly perceived the us to be uninterested in supporting the south because of ambiguous and often downright misleading signaling by the us.

if anything, suddenly bailing from the peninsula makes such miscalculations more likely.

Oh, please. This is just embarrassing.

We'd "cooperate" with North Korea too, if they actually had anything worth having.

i'm not sure why i should be embarrassed to say that russia and the dprk are qualitatively different and do not require identical foreign policies.  i still don't get what russia has to do with whether or not the dprk is a threat to seoul.  ffs the dprk doesn't even have a 'let's try not to nuke each other hotline.' (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/world/asia/north-korea-shuts-last-remaining-hotline-to-south.html)  they don't cooperate on arms control at all.  they regularly threaten to destroy south korea and the us.  they semi-regularly attack and kill south korean military personnel.  we don't trade with them and we actively try to stop them from trading with others.  they're ruled by a dictator with nearly absolute authority.  the list goes on and on...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 10, 2016, 04:37:01 PM
You guys are arguing over US foreign policy like ANY of it makes sense to begin with. We have done little with our foreign "aid" packages, military presence, covert and overt influences, regime change etc than alienate ourselves from the rest of the World.

By projecting the idea that we know what's good for each and every country and unique culture better than they do, actively undermining sovereignty on a global scale, we've made begrudged allies who would be enemies if they weren't basically reliant on our money. Look at Saudi Arabia... our so called biggest ally in the middle east, let's pretend 911 wasn't a conspiracy, the so called hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is literally no difference between Saudi ideology and ISIS ideology. We pay Islamic Rebels to fight Syria, while simultaneously fighting Islamic Rebels in Iraq. We overthrow Giddafi and let extremists fight over control of Libya. We are allies with Turkey who are actively fighting our main ally in the fight for Iraq, the Kurds.

Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 11, 2016, 03:26:27 PM
if you would take the time to actually read the content of my posts, you'd find that this is the statement i've been disagreeing with for 2 pages now.  rational people can disagree about things.  rational people can make miscalculations.  rational people can be influenced by emotions, ideology, appeals to concepts like justice/retaliation/whatever, etc.  your argument rests on the idea that all rational people see the the same way: the way you see them.  that's not an argument; it's just ego.

please stop pretending that all rational people always agree with each other about what is most rational.  how do you not realize that the implication of that belief is that everyone who disagrees with you is either crazy or just trying to annoy you?

I don't believe someone who can truly be described as "rational" actually exists, but that's beside the point. I'm pointing out that both cases, the US loses and the US forces stationed in South Korea don't affect the outcome. Either DPRK attacks the South or they don't. If Kim Jong-Un is apparently crazy enough to attack at all, then the US forces there won't make a difference. They'll be nuked out of existence and thousands of American men and women would have died for nothing.

here's a scenario: without a us presence on the peninsula, the dprk could be more emboldened to attack more south korean ships with sub attacks, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) or plant more landmines on the sk side of the border (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/world/asia/north-korea-placed-mines-that-maimed-2-south-korean-soldiers-at-dmz-seoul-says.html), or whatever.  i mean i know a rational actor would not attack south korea at all lol, but setting that aside, suppose south korea gets all pissy and finally decides to hulk out on north korea.  so they get into a bunch of shit, and north korea goes all guerrilla war, and then maybe china or russia or both decide to start materially aiding the dprk and the peninsula is now up to its dick in a new korean war.  or something along those lines.

to be clear, i'm not saying that absolutely 100% would definitely happen in exactly that manner, but it's obviously not hard to think of some scenarios in which a us military presence would be a useful means of de-escalating south korea from going to war.  sunk warships are exactly the kind of event that causes otherwise "rational actors" to make less-than-optimal decisions.

If the South Koreans value that US presence, then they'll pay for it. Regardless, the escalation scenarios you link are just news outlets grasping for attention. DPRK 'escalates tensions' on a yearly basis and nothing ever happens. The bases don't even go on alert.

if anything, suddenly bailing from the peninsula makes such miscalculations more likely.

That you believe any of these changes would happen 'suddenly' is disturbing.

I'm not sure why i should be embarrassed to say that russia and the dprk are qualitatively different and do not require identical foreign policies.  i still don't get what russia has to do with whether or not the dprk is a threat to seoul.  ffs the dprk doesn't even have a 'let's try not to nuke each other hotline.' (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/world/asia/north-korea-shuts-last-remaining-hotline-to-south.html)  they don't cooperate on arms control at all.  they regularly threaten to destroy south korea and the us.  they semi-regularly attack and kill south korean military personnel.  we don't trade with them and we actively try to stop them from trading with others.  they're ruled by a dictator with nearly absolute authority.  the list goes on and on...

If you don't understand why foreign policies are interconnected then I don't know what to say. These countries are all on the same planet, they don't live in their own bubble worlds.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 14, 2016, 09:04:07 PM
You guys are arguing over US foreign policy like ANY of it makes sense to begin with. We have done little with our foreign "aid" packages, military presence, covert and overt influences, regime change etc than alienate ourselves from the rest of the World.

By projecting the idea that we know what's good for each and every country and unique culture better than they do, actively undermining sovereignty on a global scale, we've made begrudged allies who would be enemies if they weren't basically reliant on our money. Look at Saudi Arabia... our so called biggest ally in the middle east, let's pretend 911 wasn't a conspiracy, the so called hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is literally no difference between Saudi ideology and ISIS ideology. We pay Islamic Rebels to fight Syria, while simultaneously fighting Islamic Rebels in Iraq. We overthrow Giddafi and let extremists fight over control of Libya. We are allies with Turkey who are actively fighting our main ally in the fight for Iraq, the Kurds.

Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.

Now here is a thing, Truthy; I agree with every word you say through the whole post, never thought that would happen, damn!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 14, 2016, 09:12:45 PM
I'm not too upset about the endless wars in the Middle East. If all of those Islamic countries managed to stop fighting each other then they would aggressively attack everyone else. Better that Muslims stay busy killing other Muslims than turning their attention to the infidels.

Once the region is sucked dry of oil, pretty much every first world nation will vacate the area. Saudi Arabia will turn back into a poor stretch of sand that only a hardcore anthropologist or archaeologist could love.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 15, 2016, 01:29:57 PM
Quote
Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.

Quote from: Yes, Minister
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Simply replace 'Europe' with 'World' and 'Britain' with 'America'
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2016, 02:23:16 PM
russia is an ally
Whose? ???

(The correct answer is India, China, Belarus, Iran, Syria)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 15, 2016, 02:58:16 PM
russia is an ally
Whose? ???

(The correct answer is India, China, Belarus, Iran, Syria)

and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."

good 1 tho.  very witty.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 15, 2016, 07:07:21 PM
You guys are arguing over US foreign policy like ANY of it makes sense to begin with. We have done little with our foreign "aid" packages, military presence, covert and overt influences, regime change etc than alienate ourselves from the rest of the World.

By projecting the idea that we know what's good for each and every country and unique culture better than they do, actively undermining sovereignty on a global scale, we've made begrudged allies who would be enemies if they weren't basically reliant on our money. Look at Saudi Arabia... our so called biggest ally in the middle east, let's pretend 911 wasn't a conspiracy, the so called hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is literally no difference between Saudi ideology and ISIS ideology. We pay Islamic Rebels to fight Syria, while simultaneously fighting Islamic Rebels in Iraq. We overthrow Giddafi and let extremists fight over control of Libya. We are allies with Turkey who are actively fighting our main ally in the fight for Iraq, the Kurds.

Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.

Now here is a thing, Truthy; I agree with every word you say through the whole post, never thought that would happen, damn!

I knew you'd come around  ;)

Quote from: Yes, Minister
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Simply replace 'Europe' with 'World' and 'Britain' with 'America'

Ordo Ad Chao
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 17, 2016, 04:34:09 PM
and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."
Oh, hey, I missed that bit. Then again, it's just as wrong as your original claim so I'm not sure what the point is.

Referring to your homeland's biggest adversaries as "not technically allies" is not strictly inaccurate, but it's a choice of words even Fox News would approach with caution.

Countries which actively oppose and try to destabilise the west can be compared. Just because some of them are strong enough to actually be taken seriously doesn't mean that's no longer true.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 19, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."
Oh, hey, I missed that bit. Then again, it's just as wrong as your original claim so I'm not sure what the point is.

Referring to your homeland's biggest adversaries as "not technically allies" is not strictly inaccurate, but it's a choice of words even Fox News would approach with caution.

Countries which actively oppose and try to destabilise the west can be compared. Just because some of them are strong enough to actually be taken seriously doesn't mean that's no longer true.

what you're saying would make perfect sense in 1985
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 20, 2016, 10:58:07 PM
Some fool tried to grab the pistol out of a cop's hip holster and assassinate Trump. Even better, he had a UK license on him, so he might have flown all the way over here just to make a fool out of himself.

Instances of this happening might increase because Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs (see: every protest at his rallies). Hillary's and the media's "Trump is Hitler!" rhetoric certainly isn't helping. Just last week Stephen Colbert drew a "Trump chart" that was quite literally a giant swastika. See Scott Adams' thoughts:

Quote from: Scott Adams
If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. I too would feel that way if an actual Hitler came to power in this country. I would join the resistance and try to take out the Hitler-like leader. You should do the same. No one wants an actual President Hitler.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2016, 02:45:04 AM
That's insane, Trump is nothing like Hitler!  Hitler came into power by playing on the nationalistic fears and prejudices of his country's people, while completely ostracizing and even targeting multiple specific demographics within his own population...

Umm.  :-\

Oh wait...  :(

Well we can always hope he doesn't win the presidency, anyway.  Then there would be no need to assassinate him.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 21, 2016, 03:46:01 AM
Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs

i genuinely love how strongly trump's rhetorical tactics have influenced your own.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 21, 2016, 03:50:55 AM
Also, Trump bears no responsibility for any violence at his rallies, despite his repeated calls for his followers to use force against people who shouldn't be there and his promise that he'll pay any legal bills they accrue; however, it's totally the fault of Hillary and the media when some guy tries to assassinate Trump.  Very consistent.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 01:02:12 PM
Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs

i genuinely love how strongly trump's rhetorical tactics have influenced your own.

Hmm, or maybe it's possible that they're violent nutjobs. Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans. Trump has accrued five shutdowns so far. "Trump says we're violent, dangerous, and should be deported. Let's show him who's boss by being violent and dangerous!"

Also, Trump bears no responsibility for any violence at his rallies, despite his repeated calls for his followers to use force against people who shouldn't be there and his promise that he'll pay any legal bills they accrue; however, it's totally the fault of Hillary and the media when some guy tries to assassinate Trump.  Very consistent.

"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2016, 02:03:15 PM
Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs

i genuinely love how strongly trump's rhetorical tactics have influenced your own.

Hmm, or maybe it's possible that they're violent nutjobs. Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

Maybe Republicans are bigger assholes?

Quote
Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans. Trump has accrued five shutdowns so far. "Trump says we're violent, dangerous, and should be deported. Let's show him who's boss by being violent and dangerous!"

Not all of Trump's rallies were shutdown by violence, some of them were shutdown because he was scared there would be violence (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4846.msg99216#msg99216).  Is a leader who is scared of breaking a few eggs really going to make America great again?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 02:05:21 PM
Not all of Trump's rallies were shutdown by violence, some of them were shutdown because he was scared there would be violence (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4846.msg99216#msg99216).  Is a leader who is scared of breaking a few eggs really going to make America great again?

"Not all of them were shutdown by violence, some were shut down just by the threat of violence!"

Am I in some kind of parody universe?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2016, 02:30:48 PM
Not all of Trump's rallies were shutdown by violence, some of them were shutdown because he was scared there would be violence (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4846.msg99216#msg99216).  Is a leader who is scared of breaking a few eggs really going to make America great again?

"Not all of them were shutdown by violence, some were shut down just by the threat of violence!"

Am I in some kind of parody universe?

Sorry I wasn't aware they were the same thing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on June 21, 2016, 02:35:48 PM
Weird how leftists think a presidential candidate shouldn't be concerned about the safety of his supporters
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 21, 2016, 02:36:44 PM
Hmm, or maybe it's possible that they're violent nutjobs.

hey maybe it's possible that they're generally from mars, too.  good argument.

Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

lol maybe do a single google search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots) before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."

srsly tho please feed me more inductive weak inductive reasoning.  it's compelling.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.

it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. (http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trump-supporters-pepper-spraying-prote-1780399845) 

nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Woody on June 21, 2016, 03:13:09 PM
It is a good indication of how US foreign and domestic policy will be run if he wins.  More military actions and violence. 

He is the first US political figure in my life time that I have not just dismissed comments comparing them to Hitler as being an outlandish statement.

Just seeing his support he gives for violent actions against people who protest him is enough for me to worry what might happen.  That is the same tactic Hitler used and would support violence being committed against any group or person that did not support him.

Supporting and stating he will not rule out special IDs and requiring a group of people to register with the government based on their religion.

I think just how much neo-nazi/white supremace support him is a good indication of what we can expect if he is elected.  I could be wrong, but I never noticed any other candidate have them support them so energetically.

It saddens me that Trump can use the tactics he is using so openly and has a chance of becoming President. 

I have been thinking of sailing to another country to live for a couple of years.  Maybe it is time to push up my plans and think about extending my stay.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2016, 03:28:22 PM
Weird how leftists think a presidential candidate shouldn't be concerned about the safety of his supporters

Weird how you are putting words in my mouth.  All I am saying is that the assertion that Rushy was making was not factually correct.

That's ok right?  RIGHT???
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 04:29:41 PM
Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

lol maybe do a single google search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots) before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."

Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him. Saying "yeah, but they wanted to kill him" would be illogical, because then we'd have to start counting Facebook comments as assassination attempts. Good one.

Why don't Hillary or Bernie face repeated assassination attempts? Ah, that's right, they're the ones that are violent.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.

it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. (http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trump-supporters-pepper-spraying-prote-1780399845) 

nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.

Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?

This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct, that instead of just conceding and saying "Yes, Rushy, Bernie or Hillary have never had a right-wing group shut down their rally by threatening violence or actually assaulting attendees" you pick the strawman route and say "but look! look these Trump supporters were pepper spraying protesters that were yelling in their face and assaulting other people!"

In fact, the only rally Bernie ever had shut down was done so in response to BLM, a left-wing hate group. The left is so violent, it's attacking itself.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2016, 05:42:41 PM
Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

lol maybe do a single google search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots) before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."

Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him. Saying "yeah, but they wanted to kill him" would be illogical, because then we'd have to start counting Facebook comments as assassination attempts. Good one.

I know right? It's like counting the threat of violence as violence!  LOL that would be dumb.

Quote
Why don't Hillary or Bernie face repeated assassination attempts? Ah, that's right, they're the ones that are violent.

Hillary and Bernie are encouraging democrats to assassinate Trump?  Man, this campaign is getting dir-tay.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.

it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. (http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trump-supporters-pepper-spraying-prote-1780399845) 

nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.

Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?[/quote]

So wait, Trump supporters are pepper-spraying democrats, yet its only the democrats you are violent?  Yes, you are living in a parody universe, and are starring in the show.

Quote
This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct, that instead of just conceding and saying "Yes, Rushy, Bernie or Hillary have never had a right-wing group shut down their rally by threatening violence or actually assaulting attendees" you pick the strawman route and say "but look! look these Trump supporters were pepper spraying protesters that were yelling in their face

NOT YELLING IN THEIR FACE!  THOSE ANIMALS!

Quote
and assaulting other people!"

If you read the entire article you would notice that in this case, the Trump supporters were clearly the instigators in this case.  Can you get off your high horse, or is too far to fall?



In fact, the only rally Bernie ever had shut down was done so in response to BLM, a left-wing hate group. The left is so violent, it's attacking itself.
[/quote]
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 05:49:26 PM
I know right? It's like counting the threat of violence as violence!  LOL that would be dumb.

What are you even talking about? I mentioned that Trump rallies have been shut down by violence and you stated that is addition to being shut down by violence some were also shut down by the threat of violence. You seem to think that you've somehow proven me wrong somewhere.

Hillary and Bernie are encouraging democrats to assassinate Trump?  Man, this campaign is getting dir-tay.

You don't constantly compare your opponent to Hitler whilst expecting everyone to be okay with it. People want to kill Trump because they literally, and I mean literally in the most literal possible way, think Trump is Hitler. Just look at this thread. The left has gone fucking nuts.

Hitler won because his brownshirts violently shutdown the opponent's political rallies and disrupted any possible peaceful discourse available. Hillary/Bernie are closer to Hitler/Stalin/Mao than Trump is.

So wait, Trump supporters are pepper-spraying democrats, yet its only the democrats you are violent?  Yes, you are living in a parody universe, and are starring in the show.

The Trump supporters pepper sprayed protesters that were attacking them. Christ, did you even bother reading about the incident?

NOT YELLING IN THEIR FACE!  THOSE ANIMALS!

Oh no, there's consequences to me getting in someone's face and yelling at the top of my lungs! Generally, yes, that's pretty animal-like to do. You're not going to convince someone how right you are by YELLING AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE.

If you read the entire article you would notice that in this case, the Trump supporters were clearly the instigators in this case.  Can you get off your high horse, or is too far to fall?

You should read a lot more about the incident than what Gawker, a literally bankrupt 'journalism' source has given you. The protesters were pepper spraying them in self-defense, hence why they were never charged with assault.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 21, 2016, 05:56:03 PM
So you do blame Hillary and the media for people trying to assassinate Trump, while simultaneously insisting that Trump bears zero responsibility for the violence at his rallies that he openly calls for and encourages?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 21, 2016, 06:45:05 PM
Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him.

- A plot in Tennessee involved two white supremacists, Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart, who planned to drive their car toward the Democratic nominee Obama and open fire with guns. They were arrested on October 22, 2008, before taking any action. Schlesselman and Cowart pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the threat in 2010 and were sentenced to 10 and 14 years in prison, respectively.

- In November 2011, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a man who believed he was Jesus and that Obama was the Antichrist, hit the White House with several rounds fired from a semi-automatic rifle. No one was injured. However, a window was broken.

- Another attempt was made in April 2013 when a letter laced with ricin, a deadly poison, was sent to President Obama.

this is literally exactly what trump does.  you say something absurd, like, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do," don't back it up with any evidence, and then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you just define your way out of the argument.  you're about to do it again right now by coming up with some convoluted reasons why the attempts on obama and clinton, for instance, don't count.


Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?

protip: combining shitty inductive reasoning with confirmation bias makes your argument worse, not better.

so just to be clear, "Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs," and trump supporters are not, but only if we count the times that someone decided to cancel a rally?  if your argument is that trump's opposition are "generally violent" nutjobs, in apparent contrast to trump supporters, then i feel like examples of trump supporters being violent are pretty apropos.  but, again, if you want to just define yourself as correct without regard to reality, then i certainly can't stop you.

hey dummy: if it's only the times that a rally gets canceled that count, then you now have five total examples of 'trump's opposition' being violent.  wow how general.  shitty inductive reasoning is shitty.

This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct

lol.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/chronicling-donald-trumps-lies/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/24/Donald-Trump-s-8-Most-Recent-Blatant-Lies
http://www.ibtimes.com/list-donald-trump-lies-10-claims-gop-front-runner-immigration-muslims-kkk-dont-hold-2330265
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Quote from: national review
Trump’s entire personal and professional history is Obama-esque: When it serves his interests, Trump lies. He has lied to business associates, employees, friends, spouses, and now to millions of prospective voters. Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself. When it becomes expedient for Trump to lie, he will.

(http://i.imgur.com/VBRUR43.png?2)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 09:16:09 PM
So you do blame Hillary and the media for people trying to assassinate Trump, while simultaneously insisting that Trump bears zero responsibility for the violence at his rallies that he openly calls for and encourages?

Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?

Trump has only ever encouraged a response to violence happening at his rallies. Protesters constantly interrupt and he wanted the violently punished. Maybe they'd stop interrupting private events if that were the case. If you want to protest Trump, do it at the voting booth. It serves no purpose at all to show up and harass people at Trump's rallies. If anything, you've just reassured them they made the right choice.

- A plot in Tennessee involved two white supremacists, Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart, who planned to drive their car toward the Democratic nominee Obama and open fire with guns. They were arrested on October 22, 2008, before taking any action. Schlesselman and Cowart pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the threat in 2010 and were sentenced to 10 and 14 years in prison, respectively.

- In November 2011, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a man who believed he was Jesus and that Obama was the Antichrist, hit the White House with several rounds fired from a semi-automatic rifle. No one was injured. However, a window was broken.

- Another attempt was made in April 2013 when a letter laced with ricin, a deadly poison, was sent to President Obama.

this is literally exactly what trump does.  you say something absurd, like, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do," don't back it up with any evidence, and then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you just define your way out of the argument.  you're about to do it again right now by coming up with some convoluted reasons why the attempts on obama and clinton, for instance, don't count.

It's funny that you've now managed to make this about Obama without investigating my base statement that Republicans face more assassination attempts than Democrats. I'm waiting for you to count them up.


protip: combining shitty inductive reasoning with confirmation bias makes your argument worse, not better.

so just to be clear, "Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs," and trump supporters are not, but only if we count the times that someone decided to cancel a rally?  if your argument is that trump's opposition are "generally violent" nutjobs, in apparent contrast to trump supporters, then i feel like examples of trump supporters being violent are pretty apropos.  but, again, if you want to just define yourself as correct without regard to reality, then i certainly can't stop you.

hey dummy: if it's only the times that a rally gets canceled that count, then you now have five total examples of 'trump's opposition' being violent.  wow how general.  shitty inductive reasoning is shitty.

Once again you can't even manage to admit basic truths, then you turn around and complain about me and making personal attacks. I can see you may very well be one of those violent people I mentioned.

If you don't understand the difference between hundreds to thousands of people attacking and shutting down rallies versus "yeah, but that one Trump supporter used pepper spray!" then I have bad news. I'll even bet you think La Raza isn't a big deal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/chronicling-donald-trumps-lies/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/24/Donald-Trump-s-8-Most-Recent-Blatant-Lies
http://www.ibtimes.com/list-donald-trump-lies-10-claims-gop-front-runner-immigration-muslims-kkk-dont-hold-2330265
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Oh boy, a long string of anti-Trump sites culminated with Politifact, a site that endorsed Hillary. You're also using some other RINO conservative sites that I could almost guarantee you wouldn't normally agree with. Even, laughably, The Blaze.

This is the Internet. You could find countless links saying anything you want them to. I could find you five or so links talking about military chemtrails. Media sites are pretty useless when they're all trying to peddle lies.



Edit:
In other news, Trump is now asking for donations and will be matching any donation made for the next two days after donating $50 million directly to the campaign. A donation to Trump goes a long way. One Trump dollar is worth at least four Bernie Bucks. Donate today!

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 21, 2016, 10:31:45 PM
Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?

"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"

lol

And just calling the websites that fact-check Trump liars isn't much of a defense when they provide the facts and explain their reasoning alongside their judgments.  I'll grant that Politifact does have a tendency to use weasel words and make some very subjective calls, but there's no doubt that Trump has told some absolutely outrageous lies.  Claims like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/03/donald-trump/donald-trumps-ridiculous-claim-linking-ted-cruzs-f/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/), and this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/06/donald-trump/trump-mexican-government-they-send-bad-ones-over/) are jaw-dropping in their audacity, and go far beyond whatever fibs about which emails were sent from where that Hillary may have been telling.  If Trump is willing to lie so blatantly - and stick to his story even when the rest of the world contradicts him - who knows what fabrications he'll come up with once he's in the Oval Office?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 10:57:02 PM
Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?

"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"

lol

And just calling the websites that fact-check Trump liars isn't much of a defense when they provide the facts and explain their reasoning alongside their judgments.  I'll grant that Politifact does have a tendency to use weasel words and make some very subjective calls, but there's no doubt that Trump has told some absolutely outrageous lies.  Claims like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/03/donald-trump/donald-trumps-ridiculous-claim-linking-ted-cruzs-f/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/), and this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/06/donald-trump/trump-mexican-government-they-send-bad-ones-over/) are jaw-dropping in their audacity, and go far beyond whatever fibs about which emails were sent from where that Hillary may have been telling.  If Trump is willing to lie so blatantly - and stick to his story even when the rest of the world contradicts him - who knows what fabrications he'll come up with once he's in the Oval Office?

Defending yourself from someone violently attacking you is different from my quote, which you blatantly took from the context. Protesters showing up to Trump's rallies and being violent, then coincidentally being met with violent retaliation, is not the same as Hillary and the media constantly provoking this madness. People are convinced Trump is an evil racist that must be stopped, which is a false narrative that is strung on by the media who are never punished. The media needs to be reprimanded for constantly instigating this madness.

And yes, attacking the source is valid when the source is riddled with lies and bias. The Washington Post, for example, is no more accurate than Above Top Secret as a news source.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 21, 2016, 11:25:23 PM
It's funny that you've now managed to make this about Obama without investigating my base statement that Republicans face more assassination attempts than Democrats. I'm waiting for you to count them up.
you said, "Take Obama, for example...", so i did.  your original statement was, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do."  but it turns out that "Assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States have been numerous: more than 20 attempts to kill sitting and former presidents, as well as the Presidents-elect, are known," and that, "With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."

but by all means, you probably have a special way of counting that excludes the attempts on democratic politicians, so do some counting for me.

Once again you can't even manage to admit basic truths, then you turn around and complain about me and making personal attacks. I can see you may very well be one of those violent people I mentioned.  If you don't understand the