Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Custardpi

Links234 wrote: »

Thank **** Cruz is out.

Agreed. Sadly Hillary "Goldman Sachs/Hey let's depose another dictator, what could possibly go wrong?" Clinton is almost certainly in. Overall I'm not sure the world will be massively safer.

In response to their guy biting the dust many Cruz supporters have been burning their Republican membership cards in frustration at the general election choice available to them i.e. Trump vs (barring a major upset) Clinton.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-nomination-republicans-burn-their-voter-registration-cards-in-protest-after-ted-cruz-a7012381.html

It will be interesting to see if on the left many Sanders supporters do the same.

JPNelsforearm

Christy42 wrote: »

I have seen a lot about Trump having policies for the common man. I have yet to see those policies (aside from a wall which has been established to be a stupid plan).

Ending trade deals that only benefit big business and result in jobs, tax revenue and capital flowing overseas, ending illegal immigration(and the wage depression it creates).

JPNelsforearm

Poor Glenn Beck lel, god squad btfo.
https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/727214845561593857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Ending trade deals that only benefit big business and result in jobs, tax revenue and capital flowing overseas, ending illegal immigration(and the wage depression it creates).

Every candidate is against illegal immigration.

The argument is over what should count as legal immigration.

timmyntc

Christy42 wrote: »

Every candidate is against illegal immigration.

The argument is over what should count as legal immigration.

Illegal immigration was a taboo talking point until Trump addressed it, only after seeing the surge in support for anti-illegal immigration policies did the other candidates 'adopt' some immigration control policies of any sort.

Links234

Custardpi wrote: »

Agreed. Sadly Hillary "Goldman Sachs/Hey let's depose another dictator, what could possibly go wrong?" Clinton is almost certainly in. Overall I'm not sure the world will be massively safer.

As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton (she's awul. Hates America ), she's preferable to Trump. While he's a step-up from Cruz who wanted to bomb Isis, but couldn't even say where he wanted to bomb, the position of "we gotta take out their families" and yay waterboarding, torture is good, **** the Geneva convention isn't exactly great either. Cruz is an evangelical dominionist, and would like to turn the states into a theocracy, but again I'm not sure Trump's gonna be much better, he does present a danger to freedom of speech as he desires to change libel laws so that he can sue newspapers who say things he doesn't like. That and his rhetoric against protestors, what freedom of assembley?

It'd be like if Denis O'Brien ran for taoiseach. Now there's a terrifying thought.

Trump's views on economic issues are stupid at best, at worst they are lies he's told gullible people to get their support. The thing is that many jobs are lost due to automation, and for all his bluster, they are never coming back. China, illegal immigration, and what have you make for good scapegoats, that's all. To put it in local terms, supermarkets are putting in self-service checkouts to replace cashiers, and those jobs unforunately are gone.

Here is how the nominees would map to Irish faces imo.

Ted Cruz -> Ronan Mullen
Trump -> Lucinda Creighton (except somehow liked)
Hillary -> Frances Fitzgerald
Sanders -> Ruairí Quinn

Christy42

timmyntc wrote: »

Illegal immigration was a taboo talking point until Trump addressed it, only after seeing the surge in support for anti-illegal immigration policies did the other candidates 'adopt' some immigration control policies of any sort.

Pretty sure being against the law being broken is the default. The only candidate who has said anything different was Trump suggesting his supporters punch people. I haven't seen any anti robbery policies, I assume the candidates are against by default.

Seriously even the leftist of the left is against illegal immigration. They just want more liberal laws about legal immigration.

Have to say that the thought of an isolationist America (only coming out to bomb a terrorist's family) is a scary one.

Links234

Oh and just when you thought Mr. definitely not a swarm of locusts in a skin suit couldn't get any more awkward:

https://twitter.com/NowThisGIF/status/727662377072742402

JPNelsforearm

Christy42 wrote: »

Pretty sure being against the law being broken is the default. The only candidate who has said anything different was Trump suggesting his supporters punch people. I haven't seen any anti robbery policies, I assume the candidates are against by default.

Seriously even the leftist of the left is against illegal immigration. They just want more liberal laws about legal immigration.

Have to say that the thought of an isolationist America (only coming out to bomb a terrorist's family) is a scary one.

Only Sanders is literally inviting them onstage with him....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ4gvtQQwZk

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Only Sanders is literally inviting them onstage with him....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ4gvtQQwZk

His point is that they should have been allpwed immigrate legally. At which point they wouldn't be illegal...

As I said it is about the definition of legal that the issues arise. Trump wants tighter restrictions, there Sanders is saying he wants looser. Calling it a policy on illegal immigration is an attempt to shift what the issue is. You don't call a policy on taxes a policy on tax evasion.

The Randy Riverbeast

Links234 wrote: »

Oh and just when you thought Mr. definitely not a swarm of locusts in a skin suit couldn't get any more awkward:

https://twitter.com/NowThisGIF/status/727662377072742402

Does he have to do that in public? I mean I have no problem with his homosexual acts when done in private but nobody wants to see him riding another man in public, probably found the other man in a public toilet. They dont call it "cruzing" for nothing.

I'm not a homophobe, I have a gay friend. I just don't want children being brainwashed by the homo agenda.

Links234

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Does he have to do that in public? I mean I have no problem with his homosexual acts when done in private but nobody wants to see him riding another man in public, probably found the other man in a public toilet. They dont call it "cruzing" for nothing.

I'm not a homophobe, I have a gay friend. I just don't want children being brainwashed by the homo agenda.

You probably know this already, but the fact that's his dad makes the above post all the more shudder-inducing.



Uhhhhhhhhh....

Links234

John Kasich is out.

A resounding "Who?" can be heard.

recedite

Custardpi wrote: »

...less of a bouleversement of the party's establishment rule than simply the fact that said establishment, seeking to pander to movement conservatism has effectively been sending out Trump-like signals on a range of issues for years. Trump can thus be seen as the creation of many of the party who now are desperately trying to stop him.

I think that's stretching it a bit.The political establishment in the US, most of the US media (and even more so the European media) all sent out the cues that Trump was a joke candidate, and only in the race to provide some light entertainment.This thread is another example of that.
Now they have been proved wrong.

The Randy Riverbeast

recedite wrote: »

I think that's stretching it a bit.The political establishment in the US, most of the US media (and even more so the European media) all sent out the cues that Trump was a joke candidate, and only in the race to provide some light entertainment.This thread is another example of that.
Now they have been proved wrong.

They have? Who was meant to win in the over saturated contest, The doctor that took tax plans from the bible? The former CEO who made her company worth more by leaving? The zodiac killer who hates gay people? Please clap?

Custardpi

recedite wrote: »

I think that's stretching it a bit.The political establishment in the US, most of the US media (and even more so the European media) all sent out the cues that Trump was a joke candidate, and only in the race to provide some light entertainment.This thread is another example of that.
Now they have been proved wrong.

They sent out signals that he personally was a joke candidate yes, but Trump represents the culmination of years of right wing media talking points on everything from gun control to immigration, whereby any compromise at all was seen as a surrender to sinister liberal forces. Being anti-government in & of itself became de rigeur for both the Tea Party wing of the Republicans & many in the wider party.

The end result was millions of ginned up Americans, who combining this rhetoric with stagnating wages & the industrial decline were ready for a demagogue. The old GOP establishment, having helped lay the groundwork for his candidature without realising it are now discovering that the signals sent out about Trump personally were trumped by the "down with government" rhetoric they themselves had been sending out for years so that Trump could turn that anti-establishment sentiment around & quite rightly describe Romney, Cruz, Graham & all the rest as phonies.

Pherekydes

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

They have? Who was meant to win in the over saturated contest, The doctor that took tax plans from the bible? The former CEO who made her company worth more by leaving? The zodiac killer who hates gay people? Please clap?

The guy who promotes himself best by saying "I'm handsome" and "I'm rich"
is the one who won.

It's a bizarre election, so far.

recedite

Custardpi wrote: »

They sent out signals that he personally was a joke candidate yes, but Trump represents the culmination of years of right wing media talking points on everything from gun control to immigration, whereby any compromise at all was seen as a surrender to sinister liberal forces. Being anti-government in & of itself became de rigeur for both the Tea Party wing of the Republicans & many in the wider party.

If that is the case, then the GOP elders failed to recognise their Messiah when he finally arrived. Probably the main reason for this apparent failure (or refusal) to recognise him as a winner is that Trump is less controllable than your average candidate. He keeps pointing this out himself, and the public like him all the more for it.

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

I think that's stretching it a bit.The political establishment in the US, most of the US media (and even more so the European media) all sent out the cues that Trump was a joke candidate, and only in the race to provide some light entertainment.This thread is another example of that.
Now they have been proved wrong.

If he wins, he's a joke, if he loses, he's a joke. The only question is what kind of humour the joke is.

K-9

timmyntc wrote: »

Illegal immigration was a taboo talking point until Trump addressed it, only after seeing the surge in support for anti-illegal immigration policies did the other candidates 'adopt' some immigration control policies of any sort.

It has come up the last couple of Elections I followed and I'm sure before that too.

K-9

timmyntc wrote: »

Illegal immigration was a taboo talking point until Trump addressed it, only after seeing the surge in support for anti-illegal immigration policies did the other candidates 'adopt' some immigration control policies of any sort.

That was part of the problem, Cruz and others had to move further to the right and nationalism to out Trump him, everybody was too afraid to go after him because be was building up the momentum.

Clinton can go straight at him and also appeal to the middle and left. The GOP has the Koch Bros. digging up dirt (though I don't think they are big fans of Donald), the Democrats also have formidable groups who'll be digging up dirt on Trump.

robindch

Snopes looks into the claim that the three Republican Speakers of the House who were involved with the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 subsequently had sex scandals of their own. The claim is "mostly accurate":

http://www.snopes.com/republican-impeached-clinton-scandal/

Qs

Trumps dirt is all out there though. By the time the election rolls around it will be old hat. Sanders has hit Hillary hard on policy issues and her cosying up with the banks. Trump will do that somewhat too but Benghazi will be back on the agenda as will the way she treated Lewinski and other women who were eh, friendly with Bill. I wouldn't be surprised if he manages to dig up the rape cover up story and get some traction with it too. Trump and his team are going to hit Clinton hard with women. They have to.

Igotadose

Any woman that votes for Trump is nuts! The man said he'd date his daughters if he wasn't related to them! Even if US is stupid enough to elect this guy, you think the rest of the world'll want anything to do with him?

Hotblack Desiato

Igotadose wrote: »

Even if US is stupid enough to elect this guy, you think the rest of the world'll want anything to do with him?

Do Kerry voters care what anyone else thinks about Healy-Raes? Tipperary/Lowry? Etc.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do Kerry voters care what anyone else thinks about Healy-Raes?

Behold, the political life cycle of a Healy-Rae:

K-9

Qs wrote: »

Trumps dirt is all out there though. By the time the election rolls around it will be old hat. Sanders has hit Hillary hard on policy issues and her cosying up with the banks. Trump will do that somewhat too but Benghazi will be back on the agenda as will the way she treated Lewinski and other women who were eh, friendly with Bill. I wouldn't be surprised if he manages to dig up the rape cover up story and get some traction with it too. Trump and his team are going to hit Clinton hard with women. They have to.

Don't think Trump will make a big deal about Bill, his first divorce from Ivana was a bit messy shall we say.

robindch

KomradeBishop

Bit of a red-herring really - it's a broken political system, paired with backwards economic views being mainstream (including in education), which paved the way for Trump - even well educated people are barely aware of the extent of that, and tend not to give a toss, so there will be more people like Trump, and pretty soon, as this wider problem isn't going away, and people are barely cognizant of it.

JPNelsforearm

robindch wrote: »

Yes, what we need is re-education for the great unwashed, so they vote for whatever globalist the Daily Kos endorses.

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Yes, what we need is re-education for the great unwashed, so they vote for whatever globalist the Daily Kos endorses.

Yes cos education can only mean brain washing...

JPNelsforearm

Christy42 wrote: »

Yes cos education can only mean brain washing...

What else would it be? "You dont agree with my political viewpoint, therefore you must be uneducated and need to be "correctly" educated". Or, "your education was clearly wrong, you need to be "re-educated"".

He assumes that everyone who supports Trump is either uneducated or in need of reeducation, which will of course, be the right type of education, to stop "ignorance"



The arrogance.

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What else would it be? "You dont agree with my political viewpoint, therefore you must be uneducated and need to be "correctly" educated". Or, "your education was clearly wrong, you need to be "re-educated"".

He assumes that everyone who supports Trump is either uneducated or in need of reeducation, which will of course, be the right type of education, to stop "ignorance"



The arrogance.

Education should be about broadening the mind and allowing people to make the fact checks themselves. The fact that one man can get so far on statements simply blaming Johnny Foreigner is worrying. Johnny Foreigner is not why wages have stagnated or why manufacturing jobs are going away.

A quick fact check will show you that most Mexicans are not rapists. Mexico will not pay for a wall for no reason. Women are capable of asking relevant questions whether or not they are on their period.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What else would it be? "You dont agree with my political viewpoint, therefore you must be uneducated and need to be "correctly" educated". Or, "your education was clearly wrong, you need to be "re-educated"".

The arrogance.

Racism, xenophobia and sexism are the result of ignorance/lack of education. If a political viewpoint incorporates them, then that is not a valid view point but an expression of ignorance/lack of education.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

Racism, xenophobia and sexism are the result of ignorance/lack of education. If a political viewpoint incorporates them, then that is not a valid view point but an expression of ignorance/lack of education.

Not if you redefine "racism", "sexism" and "xenophobia" to suit your political viewpoint as has happened, its not the 1960's in the deep South, or Apartheid era SA. So screaming muh racism, muh sexism, muh xenophobia is pretty much meaningless in the West, especially when we have equality legislation in place, mandated "minority" representation and quotas. Its pretty much as anti all of those things as you can get barring full on cultural marxist brainwashing and thought policing from birth eradicating any dissent from the new orthodoxy(whatever that may be).

JPNelsforearm

Christy42 wrote: »

Education should be about broadening the mind and allowing people to make the fact checks themselves. The fact that one man can get so far on statements simply blaming Johnny Foreigner is worrying. Johnny Foreigner is not why wages have stagnated or why manufacturing jobs are going away.

A quick fact check will show you that most Mexicans are not rapists. Mexico will not pay for a wall for no reason. Women are capable of asking relevant questions whether or not they are on their period.

Only it literally is, Globalism.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Not if you redefine "racism", "sexism" and "xenophobia" to suit your political viewpoint as has happened, its not the 1960's in the deep South, or Apartheid era SA. So screaming muh racism, muh sexism, muh xenophobia is pretty much meaningless in the West, especially when we have equality legislation in place, mandated "minority" representation and quotas.

....various things are illegal, that doesn't mean that people don't still hold those views or want to put them into practice. Otherwise the equality legislation and other pieces of legislation wouldn't be nessecary.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Only it literally is, Globalism.

"globalism", "cultural Marxism", "Der ewige Jude".....dear o dear. I think most around here sign up for the "liberal agenda" though. Might be cross membership in some cases I suppose.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

....various things are illegal, that doesn't mean that people don't still hold those views or want to put them into practice. Otherwise the equality legislation and other pieces of legislation wouldn't be nessecary.

Exactly my point. There is legislation in place, job done. We dont need Stalinist thought policing from birth just because some weakling isnt man enough to deal with opinions that differ from his own enlightened viewpoint.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

"globalism", "cultural Marxism", "Der ewige Jude".....dear o dear. I think most around here sign up for the "liberal agenda" though. Might be cross membership in some cases I suppose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxuwXczWQC0

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

...screaming muh racism, muh sexism, muh xenophobia is pretty much meaningless in the West...

Says the straight white male. I guess if you don't have a problem, then there isn't a problem.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Exactly my point. There is legislation in place, job done. We dont need Stalinist thought policing from birth just because some weakling isnt man enough to deal with opinions that differ from his own enlightened viewpoint.

But nobody says you can't have opinions. It's just that some opinions are utterly unworthy of consideration, quite specifically the ones I referred to earlier. Their day is done - they were the dominant view for many centuries and now they are slowly sliding away as all such redundant things should. You don't open a conference on global warming by arguing for the first day over whether or not creationism is a fact, and you can't have a serious discussion on any subject where the notion of racial superiority, global jewish plotting or similar nonsense is to be treated as if it had a shred of validity.

Custardpi

oscarBravo wrote: »

Says the straight white male. I guess if you don't have a problem, then there isn't a problem.

Oscar, I don't agree with JP's assertion that "the job is done" regarding racial & gender issues. There are many issues which disproportionately affect women & minorities across the West due to the overhang of previous structures. Hopefully communication, dialogue, debate etc can move humanity forward on these issues which sadly still divide us. However, the fact that someone may be straight or white or indeed male (I don't actually recall JP revealing his sexuality btw) doesn't in & of itself mean that his ideas have less value. If JP were black & a lesbian would that make him less wrong? If the answer is no (as I believe) then his race, gender & sexuality are irrelevant.

Lurkio

Custardpi wrote: »

Oscar, I don't agree with JP's assertion that "the job is done" regarding racial & gender issues. There are many issues which disproportionately affect women & minorities across the West due to the overhang of previous structures. Hopefully communication, dialogue, debate etc can move humanity forward on these issues which sadly still divide us. However, the fact that someone may be straight or white or indeed male (I don't actually recall JP revealing his sexuality btw) doesn't in & of itself mean that his ideas have less value. If JP were black & a lesbian would that make him less wrong? If the answer is no (as I believe) then his race, gender & sexuality are irrelevant.

That's not what hes saying by any stretch.

Custardpi

Lurkio wrote: »

That's not what hes saying by any stretch.

So why mention (or indeed assume) someone's race gender or sexuality in that context if not to imply that their ideas have less value as a result? Like I said I don't agree with JP on these issues but the approach of saying "sure you're only a straight white male, what would you know?" is just a lazy ad hominem.

Links234

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

He assumes that everyone who supports Trump is either uneducated or in need of reeducation

Sorry, but if someone's voting for this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KdNJIjylu0

...they're idiots. There's no kind way to put it. The man is a reality TV star for crying out loud, he's a failure of a businessman and a fraudster when it comes to some of his shadier ventures such as Trump University. So yes, people who support Trump are in painful need of an education.

But then I wonder what's the point in arguing this with someone who seems to communicate via South Park memes.

Links234

oscarBravo wrote: »

Says the straight white male. I guess if you don't have a problem, then there isn't a problem.

Careful there oscarBravo, or he'll post a meme of a protestor shouting "But you're a white male!" to prove his point or something. You can't argue with the memes man, the memes are right, it's where I get all of my politics, from internet memes!

Custardpi

Links234 wrote: »

But then I wonder what's the point in arguing this with someone who seems to communicate via South Park memes.

To be fair, at least he's not posting Family Guy memes. South Park is actually a pretty decent show.

oscarBravo

Custardpi wrote: »

If JP were black & a lesbian would that make him less wrong?

My point, which I had hoped was glaringly obvious, is that if he was a black lesbian he wouldn't be claiming that racism and sexism are irrelevant because he'd know they're not.