2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

Kasich was the worst candidate on stage. He put Iran and ISIS as basically being helpful to eachother and how the US need to support Saudi Arabia more to fight both of them.
It was the most ridiculous thing on the night combined with his stupid anti-Russian rhetoric.

JPNelsforearm

Hillary Clinton status=REKT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXQ0-qYUSzw

Donald Trump will massacre her if he comes up against her.

Brian?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Because a journo knows more about the mans finances then himself...

Forbes don't lie habitually the way Trump does.


Regardless of the actual figure, he inherited riches, remained rich. I don't see where he "conquered the business world".

MonkeyTennis

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hillary Clinton status=REKT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXQ0-qYUSzw

Donald Trump will massacre her if he comes up against her.

I would have said Donald is constantly acting. You see him making 'disbelieving' faces in the debates. I seriously doubt he would be that great in a one on one with Hilary without resorting to insults. Shes a gifted lawyer and though Im not a fan she certainly can hold her own under pressure.

I think the next Democratic debate will be very interesting and wont be as tame as the last one.

As for last night, I cant see anything but the field getting whittled down very soon.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Forbes don't lie habitually the way Trump does.


Regardless of the actual figure, he inherited riches, remained rich. I don't see where he "conquered the business world".

How many jobs to do think Trump has created over his business dealing years that likely might not have existed without him? And how many jobs were created by the "multiplier effect” as a consequence of his business dealings, such as restaurants, stores, food companies, furniture and fixture companies, service companies, etc? (Typically a 1.5 multiplier job creation effect according to the state of NY.)

I guess Trump could have just invested his money, sat back and then taken a couple of high power government which would have allowed him to shake down people, companies, and countries to fund a run for president. That would have been so much better, no?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

How many jobs to do think Trump has created over his business dealing years that likely might not have existed without him? And how many jobs were created by the "multiplier effect” as a consequence of his business dealings, such as restaurants, stores, food companies, furniture and fixture companies, service companies, etc? (Typically a 1.5 multiplier job creation effect according to the state of NY.)

I guess Trump could have just invested his money, sat back and then taken a couple of high power government which would have allowed him to shake down people, companies, and countries to fund a run for president. That would have been so much better, no?

That's all beside the point. The poster contended that Trump had "conquered the business world", I was disagreeing with this assertion.

Nodin

Amerika wrote: »

How many jobs to do think Trump has created over his business dealing years that likely might not have existed without him? And how many jobs were created by the "multiplier effect” as a consequence of his business dealings, such as restaurants, stores, food companies, furniture and fixture companies, service companies, etc? (Typically a 1.5 multiplier job creation effect according to the state of NY.)

I guess Trump could have just invested his money, sat back and then taken a couple of high power government which would have allowed him to shake down people, companies, and countries to fund a run for president. That would have been so much better, no?

Do you think Mr Trump would be the best selection for the Republican party?

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Donald Trump will massacre her if he comes up against her.

Trump seems to be very uneducated, unprepared, and lacking any depth when it comes to US foreign policy issues when interviewed last September, as well as during last night's Republican debate. Love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton will be well informed of foreign affairs having been former Secretary of State. Trump will also be shallow when it comes to understanding how the US Congress works (one of the 3 branches of US government), especially the US Senate where Hillary Clinton had been a former US Senator.

In terms of verifiable past work experience, Trump has ZERO governance, and is not prepared to assume the highest office in US government. He may have been the host on Celebrity Apprentice, but I am doubtful that the Americans need an inexperienced entry-level "apprentice" president given Trump's lack of qualifications. He can bluster from the podium that he is an outsider and not corrupted by government oriented lobbies, but those believing this polemic spin Trump claims have not read, or understood, or comprehended the spirit and intent behind his 1987 book The Art of the Deal; i.e., such actions advocated by Trump in his book might work in making business deals, but would break ethics, domestic and foreign protocols, and lead to violating some laws in governance.

Of course Trump apologists will claim that he will compensate for his total lack of education, training, and past experiences for the highest government office by surrounding himself with qualified experts. If so, why elect "apprentice" Trump, when Americans should elect one of the qualified experts, and avoid all the mistakes that entry-level employees make when first starting a job they are completely unprepared for?

eire4

Nodin wrote: »

I did. He stated

"Besides, Trump is not a man of stature. His notoriety comes from the fact that he hosted the apprentice, got a massive inheritance from his rich father and tends to piss off people wherever he goes. He also was on WWE a few years back where he bodyslammed Vince McMahon.

He's an entertainer and a clown and regardless of the the fact that he's a massive racist, liar, bully and just a general asshole, he's just not a man of stature who I'd be proud to represent my country."

What contained in these two paragraphs are you implying is hearsay?

Looking at the above description I would say Mighty Mandarin left out Mysogynist!

Thargor

I was a fan of the Apprentice for years and I genuinely liked Trump before the imbecilic Muslim blockade comments and building the giant magic wall, and last night he gave one of the only answers I agreed with:

Trump is asked if America would be better off with dictators in the Middle East. “It’s not like we had victory,” he says. “It’s a mess.” A protester speaks up and he’s booed again. Who’s booing him. Who are the anti-Trump elements in the hall?
“I my opinion we’ve spent $4t trying to topple various people, and frankly.. if we could’ve spent that $4tn in the United States, we would have been a lot better off.” He wants to spend it on roads and hospitals.

I often find myself wishing he could have just toned it down a bit and maybe got in and maybe implemented some of these ideas before he made himself unelectable. The guy is a bulldozer and people would fear him because of the way he goes after them personally as opposed to the auto-attacks on anything Obama and probably Clinton propose.



Im actually starting to despise this moron now though:

Fiorina points out that that’s what Obama says.

Oh no Obama said infrastructure upgrades are good! Better let everything outside your gated community rot then Carly and continue with the endless war overseas, that'll show them terrorists!

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump seems to be very uneducated, unprepared, and lacking any depth when it comes to US foreign policy issues when interviewed last September, as well as during last night's Republican debate. Love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton will be well informed of foreign affairs having been former Secretary of State. Trump will also be shallow when it comes to understanding how the US Congress works (one of the 3 branches of US government), especially the US Senate where Hillary Clinton had been a former US Senator.

In terms of verifiable past work experience, Trump has ZERO governance, and is not prepared to assume the highest office in US government. He may have been the host on Celebrity Apprentice, but I am doubtful that the Americans need an inexperienced entry-level "apprentice" president given Trump's lack of qualifications. He can bluster from the podium that he is an outsider and not corrupted by government oriented lobbies, but those believing this polemic spin Trump claims have not read, or understood, or comprehended the spirit and intent behind his 1987 book The Art of the Deal; i.e., such actions advocated by Trump in his book might work in making business deals, but would break ethics, domestic and foreign protocols, and lead to violating some laws in governance.

Of course Trump apologists will claim that he will compensate for his total lack of education, training, and past experiences for the highest government office by surrounding himself with qualified experts. If so, why elect "apprentice" Trump, when Americans should elect one of the qualified experts, and avoid all the mistakes that entry-level employees make when first starting a job they are completely unprepared for?

All of Hillary Clintons "expertise" counted for naught, her tenure at the state dept was a scandal ridden mess.
Trump runs a multinational business empire, Clinton is a lifetime leech, she has created exactly nothing of value or intellectual merit in her existence.
She is a flip flop politician, a complete snake, what does she offer besides being Hillary Clinton?
Trump can run a technocratic government, recognise whats flawed and hire the best people for the job. Hillary Clinton is utterly compromised, her years of "experience" and fund raising efforts have left her owing a lot of favours, in the same way Obama appointed people as favours, party politics etc etc, her administration would equally be as compromised.

Amerika

Nodin wrote: »

Do you think Mr Trump would be the best selection for the Republican party?

No, not at all. I don't think the GOP can trust him.

As of now I’m leaning towards Ted Cruz, but I don’t believe he is Constitutionally eligible to become president. I like a lot of what Marco Rubio has to say, but being a one-term US Senator before becoming POTUS... well, we see how badly that has turned out with our current guy. I like Jeb Bush on fiscal matters, but his stance on some social issues scares me. I guess if the primary was today, I’d go with Carly Fiorina. I think the GOP could reluctantly get behind her, although I think they would prefer Rubio, Bush, Christie or Kasich.

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Trump can run a technocratic government, recognise whats flawed and hire the best people for the job.

"Trump can run a technocratic government" based upon what objectively verifiable education and prior experience? As for "technocratic," what specific technology education and past experience does Trump have? As for "government," what specific education and prior experience does Trump have?

Using a flip-side example, if you were an HR senior vice president of a Fortune 50 corporation interviewing candidates for CEO, and a job candidate entered your office with absolutely no job related education or experience in business, no matter what came out of their mouth during the interview, would you seriously consider them for the highest office in your corporation, recommending them to your BOD? Trump is now interviewing for the chief of the Executive branch of US government (the highest office in US government), and he has ZERO education and prior experience in governance, only having what comes out of his mouth from the campaign podium.

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

"Trump can run a technocratic government" based upon what objectively verifiable education and prior experience? As for "technocratic," what specific technology education and past experience does Trump have? As for "government," what specific education and prior experience does Trump have?

Using a flip-side example, if you were an HR senior vice president of a Fortune 50 corporation interviewing candidates for CEO, and a job candidate entered your office with absolutely no job related education or experience in business, no matter what came out of their mouth during the interview, would you seriously consider them for the highest office in your corporation, recommending them to your BOD? Trump is now interviewing for the chief of the Executive branch of US government (the highest office in US government), and he has ZERO education and prior experience in governance, only having what comes out of his mouth from the campaign podium.

You do know what a technocratic government is? Google General Franco, technocratic government, Spanish economic miracle etc etc. Im not going to copy and paste bookloads of info

The US president is a CEO, how successful an administration is, depends on the competency of the people the president appoints, not the president himself. Trump doesnt need to be a politician to recognise competency. Take Bush, his administration is defined by his neo con appointments.

You seem to be under the impression that governance requires some special education and skills, it doesnt, a law degree, a teaching degree or even a political science degree doesnt confer someone with some mythical "credentials" to govern. What credentials does Hilary or did Obama have that can compare to running a large multinational? Politics isnt real any manner of incompetents can hide within, you cannot be a man of private enterprise and maintain and increase your wealth if you are similarly incompetent, there are no unique skills or intelligence required to be a politician.

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

...General Franco, technocratic government, Spanish economic miracle etc etc. Im not going to copy and paste bookloads of info

Are you suggesting that the Trump presidency would be in some ways similar to the dictatorship of General Francisco Franco of Spain (1939-1975)? The same General Franco that "with the help of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, his Nationalist forces overthrew the democratically elected Second Republic?"

History Channel: Life Under Franco: Many Republican figures fled the country in the wake of the civil war, and military tribunals were set up to try those who remained. These tribunals sent thousands more Spaniards to their death, and Franco himself admitted in the mid-1940s that he had 26,000 political prisoners under lock and key. The Franco regime also essentially made Catholicism the only tolerated religion, banned the Catalan and Basque languages outside the home, forbade Catalan and Basque names for newborns, barred labor unions, promoted economic self-sufficiency policies and created a vast secret police network to spy on citizens.

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the Trump presidency would be in some ways similar to the dictatorship of General Francisco Franco of Spain (1939-1975)? The same General Franco that "with the help of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, his Nationalist forces overthrew the democratically elected Second Republic?"

Im using it as an example successful implementation of a technocratic government, Franco recognised the failure of "pure" ideology as a manner in which to run a country, so he appointed technocrats to implement and run the country economically, it succeeded. Im well versed in the history of the period there is no need to bring it up, its irrelevant, it was the first example that sprung to mind. As for his kicking the **** out of the commies and various anarchists/internationalists, I would support that, whatever else happened after, well, a catholic fascist police state wouldnt be my cup of tea, slightly lesser of two evils... horrendous nontheless, a sunny Ireland, it was a dark period, you have to look at it in the context of the era.

The point stands, you are only as successful as the people you surround yourself with, especially when you are dealing with monolithic organisations. No one person is the saviour, Trump talks the talk, the only way to find out can he back it up is by electing hi.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Im using it as an example successful implementation of a technocratic government, Franco recognised the failure of "pure" ideology as a manner in which to run a country, so he appointed technocrats to implement and run the country economically, it succeeded. Im well versed in the history of the period there is no need to bring it up, its irrelevant, it was the first example that sprung to mind. As for his kicking the **** out of the commies and various anarchists/internationalists, I would support that, whatever else happened after, well, a catholic fascist police state wouldnt be my cup of tea, slightly lesser of two evils... horrendous nontheless, a sunny Ireland, it was a dark period, you have to look at it in the context of the era.

The point stands, you are only as successful as the people you surround yourself with, especially when you are dealing with monolithic organisations. No one person is the saviour, Trump talks the talk, the only way to find out can he back it up is by electing hi.

Why would anyone want to see if he would carry out his fairly despicable statements of intent, outside of a sick morbid curiosity?

Brian?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Im using it as an example successful implementation of a technocratic government, Franco recognised the failure of "pure" ideology as a manner in which to run a country, so he appointed technocrats to implement and run the country economically, it succeeded. Im well versed in the history of the period there is no need to bring it up, its irrelevant, it was the first example that sprung to mind. As for his kicking the **** out of the commies and various anarchists/internationalists, I would support that, whatever else happened after, well, a catholic fascist police state wouldnt be my cup of tea, slightly lesser of two evils... horrendous nontheless, a sunny Ireland, it was a dark period, you have to look at it in the context of the era.

The point stands, you are only as successful as the people you surround yourself with, especially when you are dealing with monolithic organisations. No one person is the saviour, Trump talks the talk, the only way to find out can he back it up is by electing hi.

He never stops talking. That's for sure. What exactly does he say you find so agreeable? To me most of it is nonsense.

Black Swan

Two most recent Fox News polls (taken 16-19 Nov and 16-17 Dec) show Trump jumping from 28 to 39%, Cruz marginally moving up from 14 to 18%, Rubio marginally dropping from 14 to 11%, and Carson losing half his position dropping from 18 to 9%. All other candidates remain in the single digits. It would appear that Republican outsider Carson is no longer competitive in this poll.

Poll Fact Checking: During the last Republican presidential debates Trump countered a challenge by Jeb Bush that he was in the 40 percentiles and Bush in single digits. I've only found one poll listed by RCP that showed Trump at 41% (Monmouth taken 10-13 Dec), with all the (recent) others in the 20s and 30s, and no evidence of any other poll in the 40 percentiles going all the way back to when polling started for the GOP primaries.

I did not know that Monmouth University existed until I checked (West Long Branch, NJ). It's private and generally small for a US university with only 6,570 students, and only one doctorate programme (DNP: Doctor of Nursing Practice). More importantly the Monmouth poll methodology and percentages should be viewed with caution, given that its margins of error (MOE) for all subgroups exceeded 5.0 going as high as 9.1 (except for the 385 Republican subset of the larger n=1006 sample). Secondly, the tabled "Political Ideology" only showed 3 catagories: very conservative; somewhat conservative; and moderate/liberal; along with MOE of 8.5, 8.7, and 9.1 respectively. Lumping moderates with liberals did not make sense and had the highest MOE in the poll. And lastly the subsampling strategy for the collection of data had been heavily weighted towards landline collection over mobile (cell), which may be problematic.

20Cent

Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is polling better than trump and only getting a fraction of his airtime.
Trumps rhetoric makes great tv and news so he gets a lot more coverage. Like this thread which seems to be 3/4's about trump.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

20Cent wrote: »

Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is polling better than trump and only getting a fraction of his airtime.
Trumps rhetoric makes great tv and news so he gets a lot more coverage. Like this thread which seems to be 3/4's about trump.

Point taken. Referencing the same Fox News poll in above post, as well as the same two survey taken time periods for comparison purposes, Hillary Clinton edged up from 55 to 56%, while Bernie Sanders edged up from 32 to 34%, both candidate increases falling within the confidence intervals. Hillary Clinton's recent 56% significantly exceeds Trump's 39%, while Bernie Sanders 34% is competitive with Trump's 39%. Although both a part of the Fox News poll, caution should be exercised in terms of making direct comparisons between those identified as voting for the Democratic caucus and Republican caucus primary elections; i.e., Cliché metaphor: they are both fruit, but apples and oranges.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The different number of candidates by caucus a good point to add to the potential confounding of direct comparisons between identified and different Democrat and Republican caucus primary questions in the same Fox News polls.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would be very cautious about attempting to make direct comparisons between two different polling organisations (Fox News with ABC News/Wash Post), and different polls given their different methodologies, including potential problems associated with different polling times taken, item wording, questionnaire construction, survey administration, sampling techniques, variable distributions, etc., etc.

Black Swan

Black Swan wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In your quote you left out my cautionary statement bold faced above. EDIT: Apologies if my statement was not as clear as intended. It's only half past 5AM Pacific, and I am wired but tired after pulling an all nighter.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

The following, on the importance of Data and Voter intentions, from Silver's blog might be of interest:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-berned-is-bernie-sanders-by-the-dnc-data-breach/
"
Voter files are the informational blueprints that campaigns use to build their coalitions. The massive voter file collected by the Democratic National Committee and managed by the independent firm NGP VAN is basically the informational teat from which all successful modern Democratic campaigns must suckle. So when the Democratic National Committee announced on Friday that it had barred the Bernie Sanders campaign, at least temporarily, from accessing its voter file ...
"

Black Swan

ABC news reports that 4 Bernie Sanders campaign staffers, one now fired, accessed Hillary Clinton campaign files held at DNC for 40 minutes and conducted 25 searches of that proprietary data base during that time period. Sanders campaign staffers accessed the Clinton database exploiting a security software flaw. When the scandal first broke, the Sanders campaign claimed that yes, they accessed the secured Clinton files, but no they didn't look, later to be discovered that their electronic footprints were all over the Clinton files. When the DNC found out about the "alleged" snooping, they temporarily barred Sanders access to his data files held at DNC too, prompting Sanders to file a lawsuit against DNC to reacquire access. Sanders and DNC have reached a settlement, and Sanders has now reacquired access to his own campaign files held at DNC.

The Democrat 2016 presidential nomination debate is today. Methinks there is a good chance that this scandal may emerge during the session. Although occurring within the same party, I remember reading about when the Republican Nixon campaign broke into the DNC, and several heads rolled after that including both (Republican) US vice president and president. Was this a Baby Watergate by Sanders campaign staffers, or did they innocently stumble in looking about 25 times wondering where they were at? What do you think?

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley are scheduled to debate today at 7PM central on ABC.

RobertKK

Just read some quotes from the debate as I have better things to do than watch Hillary Clinton talking more rubbish. She accused Donald Trump as being the best recruiter for ISIS, and that they will be showing videos of him talking about not allowing muslims into the US.
She fails to mention, she was one of the people who helped become a reality by supporting most strongly the invasion of Iraq, and the also the wanting the downfall of Assad, arming rebels whom they had no idea who they really were.