2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

First Up

Overheal wrote: »

Re: "Coatgate", Trump was even corrected on his basic temperature skills

Below Zero != Below Freezing, in Fahrenheit.

Freezing in Fahrenheit is 32, so at 25 it was 7 below.

But that is still probably the most accurate thing Trump said all night.

4068ac1elhodqr

Thargor wrote: »

You seem fairly certain our planet has been visited if you're accusing the Clintons about lying about releasing the data, have you any evidence to back up your conviction?

I didn't say that, but Hilary certainly seems convinced of it!
Read the article, and other press releases perhaps?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/631308/Aliens-visited-Shock-Hilary-Clinton-claim-vows-open-UFO-cover-up-CIA-NASA

Whereas some of Donny's ideas (good or bad) have an actual chance of realisation, this idea is a non-runner. A void, empty proposal, purely positioned for cheap and lazy canvasing purposes.

ancapailldorcha

Can we cut out the one liners and smileys please?

ancapailldorcha

Take the talk of aliens to PM please.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Indeed it was.

It was also a great display of how well Trumps Muslim-screening policies will work in actual practice

Trump does not come across as anti Muslim or anti Mexican. He comes across more of a really anti illegal immigrant. He takes it to extreme levels but when you actually listen to him and his supporters they never have attacked Mexican culture or Islamic beliefs like their Spanish,Indian,Mestizo upbringing or Ramadan or getting into the controversy over Mosques and Minarets.

He rarely goes into these areas and prioritises on keeping Americans safe and making sure Washington does not bring in draconian laws that would make it virtually impossible for states to decide their own immigration policy. Arizona is one state that has decided to shape their own internal laws about illegal Immigrants. To these border states not to mention the Keys of Florida illegal immigration is very dangerous to the locals.

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote:

Trump does not come across as anti Muslim or anti Mexican. He comes across more of a really anti illegal immigrant. He takes it to extreme levels but when you actually listen to him and his supporters they never have attacked Mexican culture or Islamic beliefs like their Spanish,Indian,Mestizo upbringing or Ramadan or getting into the controversy over Mosques and Minarets.

How would you categorise him saying Muslims should be barred from entering the country?

Thargor

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump does not come across as anti Muslim or anti Mexican. He comes across more of a really anti illegal immigrant. He takes it to extreme levels but when you actually listen to him and his supporters they never have attacked Mexican culture or Islamic beliefs like their Spanish,Indian,Mestizo upbringing or Ramadan or getting into the controversy over Mosques and Minarets.

Thats a softer interpretation of his views than Fox News! Even the other Republican candidates condemned his statements on Mexicans and Muslims, they were way worse than you make out...

eire4

First Up wrote: »

Freezing in Fahrenheit is 32, so at 25 it was 7 below.

But that is still probably the most accurate thing Trump said all night.

Factcheck.org has Trump listed as their "King of Whoppers" for 2015 for telling lies.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/the-whoppers-of-2015/

Manach

Well Politics makes odd bedfellows.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/06/team-obama-joins-donald-trumps-attack-ted-cruzs-citizenship/

Given rather the acrimonious attacks over this point against Pres. Obama, originating AFAIR from Hiliary in 2008, it seems rather ironic to make an issue over this.

Overheal

“It would be quite ironic if after 7 or 8 years of drama around the president’s birth certificate if Republican primary voters were to choose Senator Cruz as their nominee,” he said. “Somebody who actually wasn’t born in the United States and only 15 months ago renounced his Canadian citizenship.”

Fair comment to make after the birtherism, where they tried to prove, unsuccessfully, that Obama was not born inside the country - that if he was somehow born in Kenya (similar to the circumstances Cruz was born in Canada). Now Cruz, who was genuinely born outside of the US, is running for POTUS.

Meanwhile in the next autoplay vid, Cruz maintains he never had "a canadian passport" - while he clearly had canadian citizenship. He's touting the claim as a way of trying to mislead voters into thinking he's not Canadian and was never Canadian. Millions of bonafide Americans have never owned a passport, too.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Factcheck.org has Trump listed as their "King of Whoppers" for 2015 for telling lies.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/the-whoppers-of-2015/

The fact checkers have long since discredited themselves. Why does Hillary Clinton have 20 true statements and Donald Trump only 1. Do you really believe Donald Trump has only said one true thing? Did all Hillarys true statements really need to be berified or is it just padding? Some of the ratings they give are bizarre and inconsistent. Like how did Hillary not get a 'pants on fire' rating for her going on a solo run about Trump being in ISIS recruiting videos? Where's the fact checker denying the claim that he went bankrupt 3 times? Some of the things he's said have been really salient, like about how Russia benefited from the Iran deal by selling arms to Iran thanks to the 150bn given to Iran. No fact checker verifies or debunks that one. They just don't want to give Trump any credit. Partisan hacks.

Furthermore. Donald Trump cites a statistic that is found in 2 different polls. Once in pew research and another in a right wing think tank survey. Politifact ignores the pew poll which says much the same thing and calls the think tank 'discredited'. But if they want to attack the poll attack the poll. Don't attack Trump for backing up his points with evidence. Instead of debunking the poll they call Trump a liar. Something they would never do to a democrat.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Where's the fact checker denying the claim that he went bankrupt 3 times?

I think it was really four times.

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

Speaking of new news, a Trump supporter has been arrested in San Francisco after police were tipped off he was planning to attack Muslims

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-supporter-arrested-for-alleged-planning-to-bomb-muslims/

http://www.peacock-panache.com/2015/12/william-celi-anti-muslim-terrorism-plot20914.html



Police evacuated the neighborhood before detonating a device found at his home.

This is the type of thing people worry about when you spout a bunch of that "free media" nonsense Black Swan alludes to while never doing anything to correct your followers or check their outrage. A normal person would have long by now told their supporters not to consider such acts of violence; rather Trump is the kind of guy to watch his supporters kick and beat a man at one of his rallies - "Maybe he should have been roughed up," coming about 3 months after saying "we must treat each other with respect. I would never condone violence."

...in response to supporters beating up a Hispanic homeless man. So clearly that was a lie, and the man lacks any integrity of character.

edit: oh, and he predacated that mobbing just a couple weeks before he said he would never condone violence!

Not even the president and already creating his own terrorists. Gods forbid he gets control of a fleet of Predator and Reaper drones, flying off to violate the Geneva Conventions.

Much more is required from this candidate in terms of taking responsibility for being a leader if he wishes to gain the votes of the lunatic fringe. But he's already proven that he deserves his place on the terror watch list - at least that's what list I hope he's on.

The notion that the real threat in America or anywhere else is from right wing groups or individuals is a dangerous lie. They might commit an atrocity every now and then but if they were the only group of terrorists in this world then values such as freedom of speech freedom for women to dress however they like or enjoy a new years celebration would still exist 100 years from now. Islamic terrorism is altogether worse because it seeks to change our behaviour and challenge our values and has enjoyed considerable success at that endeavour thus far.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

The notion that the real threat in America or anywhere else is from right wing groups or individuals is a dangerous lie.

I don't know what you mean by the "real threat" but they certainly are a threat amongst others.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by the "real threat" but they certainly are a threat amongst others.

Yes, but many are leading the impressionable to believe that they are a more significant threat to society. They kill people, people die. Islamists kill people, freedom of speech gets a bit less free, integration gets a little bit harder. Its a type of terrorism that damages the fabric of society in a way that the right wing terrorism doesn't. Nothing about American political discourse or social cohesiveness changed because of Timothy McVeigh. That's what I mean by the real threat.

walshyn93

Oh Lord, Bernie Sanders shilling for Hillary. New evidence to convict Hillary: guns guns guns look at the guns.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/685616288467648513

ancapailldorcha

This is a forum for serious debate, not one liners counting the amount of times Trump may or may not have made business errors.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

You don't think his track record in business has any relevance to his credibility as a presidential candidate and possible leader of the free world?

What else do you think we should judge him on - his number of wives?

If you have a problem with moderation, please use the PM function.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

The fact checkers have long since discredited themselves. Why does Hillary Clinton have 20 true statements and Donald Trump only 1. Do you really believe Donald Trump has only said one true thing? Did all Hillarys true statements really need to be berified or is it just padding? Some of the ratings they give are bizarre and inconsistent. Like how did Hillary not get a 'pants on fire' rating for her going on a solo run about Trump being in ISIS recruiting videos? Where's the fact checker denying the claim that he went bankrupt 3 times? Some of the things he's said have been really salient, like about how Russia benefited from the Iran deal by selling arms to Iran thanks to the 150bn given to Iran. No fact checker verifies or debunks that one. They just don't want to give Trump any credit. Partisan hacks.

Furthermore. Donald Trump cites a statistic that is found in 2 different polls. Once in pew research and another in a right wing think tank survey. Politifact ignores the pew poll which says much the same thing and calls the think tank 'discredited'. But if they want to attack the poll attack the poll. Don't attack Trump for backing up his points with evidence. Instead of debunking the poll they call Trump a liar. Something they would never do to a democrat.

I don't recall too many times that Donald Trump has said anything factual in the sense that it was new information or not already widely disseminated through other sources or by other candidates. That's frankly because Trump is not an establishment candidate. He is a businessman. Fact checkers fact check what pundits and policy makers say simply because they tend to be in positions of implicit authority on the given subject matter. A politician has a responsibility if they say "we have more people incarcerated in the US than in China; we have more Prisons than colleges" that they need to be truthful because there is a propensity in people to take what they say at face value, just as when your doctor tells you you're sick - it's his job to know.

Even FOX and other conservative outlets are not going to bat for Trump: many have called him out for his rhetorical language as being irresponsible to American voters. Anyone has the right to fact check his claims, not just fact checkers.

As for why Hillary has 20 trues remember that she's been followed as a politician far longer than Trump has.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

Oh Lord, Bernie Sanders shilling for Hillary. New evidence to convict Hillary: guns guns guns look at the guns.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/685616288467648513

How is that shilling?

As for the claim:

"Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”"

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

How is that shilling?

He won't attack her on the emails scandal. It's as good as throwing her the election. How can someone who is supposedly for higher standards in public office justify giving her an easy time on this?

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

I don't recall too many times that Donald Trump has said anything factual in the sense that it was new information or not already widely disseminated through other sources or by other candidates. That's frankly because Trump is not an establishment candidate. He is a businessman. Fact checkers fact check what pundits and policy makers say simply because they tend to be in positions of implicit authority on the given subject matter. A politician has a responsibility if they say "we have more people incarcerated in the US than in China; we have more Prisons than colleges" that they need to be truthful because there is a propensity in people to take what they say at face value, just as when your doctor tells you you're sick - it's his job to know.

Even FOX and other conservative outlets are not going to bat for Trump: many have called him out for his rhetorical language as being irresponsible to American voters. Anyone has the right to fact check his claims, not just fact checkers.

As for why Hillary has 20 trues remember that she's been followed as a politician far longer than Trump has.

If Hillary cites the claim that 1 in 5 women are raped on college campuses with the fact checkers pull her up on it? The claim has long since been debunked by the original authors of the survey, but I highly doubt they would give Hillary a false for it. The fact checkers have become drunk with power, their methods are fairly lame and often don't do the level of research required to justify their position of authority.

Thargor

I dont understand the shilling comment, I dont understand the tweet, I dont understand the screensot of Google News

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

He won't attack her on the emails scandal. It's as good as throwing her the election. How can someone who is supposedly for higher standards in public office justify giving her an easy time on this?

Her emails are the subject of a legal investigation. It is irresponsible of a legislator running for the executive to pretend to be the judiciary.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

If Hillary cites the claim that 1 in 5 women are raped on college campuses with the fact checkers pull her up on it? The claim has long since been debunked by the original authors of the survey, but I highly doubt they would give Hillary a false for it. The fact checkers have become drunk with power, their methods are fairly lame and often don't do the level of research required to justify their position of authority.

You're presenting an Appeal to Ignorance, then. You can doubt if you want, but have you looked?

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/09/21/controversial-1-in-5-sexual-assault-statistic-validated-in-new-national-survey/

That wasn't exactly hard to find ether, as in, 15 seconds.

KingBrian2

My reading of Trump is he is a politician that is in tune with the electorate. He has learnt the lessons of the GOP that failed to get elected twice. He has not gone near social conservatism and sticks to the economic and foreign policy dimension that puts him front and centre. Nobody in the GOP can touch him on these issues and nobody in political circles are willing to go any further left than Hillary. As for Fox news that echo chamber place is a corporate tool for the really hardcore patriotic fools that are only interested in bully boy tactics.

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote:

My reading of Trump is he is a politician that is in tune with the electorate.

Depends on the electorate. He appeals to the Republican hard core which nowadays represents about 20% of the national population. The more inspires that element, the more he alienates everyone else.

Trump hasn't a hope of being president. The only issue is how much damage he does to the GOP while losing. It is sad to see the grand old party of Lincoln reduced to circus performers but they have only themselves (and Murdoch) to blame.

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

My reading of Trump is he is a politician that is in tune with the electorate. He has learnt the lessons of the GOP that failed to get elected twice. He has not gone near social conservatism and sticks to the economic and foreign policy dimension that puts him front and centre. Nobody in the GOP can touch him on these issues and nobody in political circles are willing to go any further left than Hillary. As for Fox news that echo chamber place is a corporate tool for the really hardcore patriotic fools that are only interested in bully boy tactics.

One of the reasons Romney lost was his lack of popularity with females and latinos. Trump seems to have learnt nothing from that.

Manach

The Democratic party seems to be relying on a continuous spiral of subdividing the US population, into smaller and smaller tribes to be wooed/conjoled with state benificence. While it will give a measure of electoral success in the short-term, the fragmentation of any state in multi-competing fiefdoms scrambling for largess is not a recipe for stability: eg Austro-Hungarian empire.

First Up

Manach wrote:

The Democratic party seems to be relying on a continuous spiral of subdividing the US population, into smaller and smaller tribes to be wooed/conjoled with state benificence. While it will give a measure of electoral success in the short-term, the fragmentation of any state in multi-competing fiefdoms scrambling for largess is not a recipe for stability: eg Austro-Hungarian empire.

So is your solution a return to a white, Euro-centric homogeneous US a la the 1950's?

If so, be prepared for dissapointment.