2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

First Up

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If Hillary is going to bring her husband and daughter and have them front and centre on her campaign trail then there will be some push back about them from her opponents.

As for Bernie's age.
Yes he is too old.
Remembered you are following a young president, that does not help an older candidate.

Hillary herself is no spring chicken.

Nor is Trump.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Another example is John McCain in 2008.

71 years old which would mean he'd be 79 by the end of two terms and to cap it all he picks sarah Palin which inevitably brought up questions about her qualifications for being president and how likely that would be.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really? I think the only reason sarah palin's daughter got some criticism of her pregnancy was because she was supposedly running her mothers "Dont Have Sex Out of Wedlock" programme for high school kids when she got pregnant?

Lockstep

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's not even just social issues. She's hopped on the anti-Wall St. bandwagon in the past few months, but it's clear as day that she'll change absolutely nothing in terms of regulation and taking on hedge funds and investment banks and their dirty schemes.

I also cannot stand her political games. The negative ads, dragging Chelsea out to bad-mouth Bernie, effectively rigging the DNC with that horrible Wassermann Schultz who's blatantly on her side. 3 debates scheduled at awful times so that Bernie wouldn't get exposure and Hillary wouldn't get found out. It's also not just Bernie supporters who despise this carry on; O'Malley and Jim Webb complained a lot about in the past few months.

But above all, I just cannot stand Hillary's attitude. She's as arrogant and cocky as they come, and her attempts to come across as 'young and trendy' are cringeworthy to say the least. Taking selfies with the Kardashians and all this nonsense is why I don't think she's presidential-like. She doesn't command an audience like Obama does, she doesn't fight for real change, even when it's unpopular to do so, like Bernie does and her ties with Wall St. just make her look so shady and looking like she's only saying nice things and acting happy so she can get something from you.

I wouldn't trust her as a person, let alone as a presidential candidate.

Completely agree on every point. I was referring to her weakness on social issues and foreign/military policy as those are the areas I'm more knowledgable on. I'm not too smart on economics or finance so I try to avoid debating those areas.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

my friend wrote: »

Too old ? That's no different than saying too black too white too female or any other foolish off the cuff statement

No. It isnt at all.

Voters are picking a president for (most likely) two four year terms.

McCain/Palin is a great example. If he ad been less arrogant and picked a viable VP candidate he may have stood a far better chance.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Calm down. You can keep posting pictures of Chelsea's living room as long as the mods patience holds.

I said the reason Bristol Palin was criticized was because she was put in charge of the high school "abstinence from sex programme" and then promptly got herself pregnant.

:pac:

First Up

InTheTrees wrote: »

No. It isnt at all.

Voters are picking a president for (most likely) two four year terms.

McCain/Palin is a great example. If he ad been less arrogant and picked a viable VP candidate he may have stood a far better chance.

Palin was forced on McCain as he had to appease the Tea Party nutters.

That will be Trump's problem too - in reverse. Who would want to be his running mate and how do they persuade him to pick someone from the more moderate wing (a relative term) to balance the ticket?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

InTheTrees wrote: »

Calm down. You can keep posting pictures of Chelsea's living room as long as the mods patience holds.

I said the reason Bristol Palin was criticized was because she was put in charge of the high school "abstinence from sex programme" and then promptly got herself pregnant.

:pac:

Please cut out the smileys. They're adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion. I'd also be grateful if you could try and be a bit more constructive in your posting.

K-9

Mod:

One line fanboy type posts deleted from this morning. Saying Trump or Clinton will hammer other candidates without posting reasons as to why is below the forum standard.

Lockstep

Also, raise the posting standard. There's a really fascinating debate going on here but if all you can contribute is "Clinton/Sanders/Trump/Cruz/Cthulu sucks and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid" then don't bother posting.
Also, some of you are being very active in reporting posts which is great, please continue to do this rather than trying to backseat moderate in the thread.

Thargor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Im not bothering with this anymore, nobody but you seems to care about it, its something a candidate could boast about not be beaten with, especially a mother who quit while she was ahead after their child was born, total non-issue that nobody cares about except you, a bit like Chelsea Clintons nice apartment...

First Up

K-9 wrote:

One line fanboy type posts deleted from this morning. Saying Trump or Clinton will hammer other candidates without posting reasons as to why is below the forum standard.

Well I did mention the Electoral College, the significance of which seems to be missed by a lot of our amateur analysts.

Simply put, the election will be decided by a relatively small number of States that are still in play. Obama won almost all of them in 2008 and 2012 and the demographics have moved even further in the Dems direction since. Throw in Trump's penchant for alienating exactly the sort of people he needs and it isn't a stretch to think Hillary could get close to Obama's 330+ from last time.

As it stands, the Dems are a lock for about 240/250 of the 270 they need so the GOP needs to win back just about all the States they lost the last two times - probably with a candidate who epitomises why voters deserted them in 2008 and 2012.

I think this election is a done deal. The real battle is for the future relevance of the Republican Party, which they need to reclaim from Fox and the Mad Hatter Tea Party or risk oblivion.

Meanwhile the obsession with Hillary's stock trading, Chelsea's penthouse and Bill's wandering eye (et al) can be sung to the accompaniment of the orchestra on the Titanic.

matthew8

Which 240/250 are the Democrats a lock for? They're not a lock in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota anymore. It's highly unlikely the republicans win the popular vote but lose the presidency, it would only happen if they won the popular vote by a tiny margin. As for the future relevance of the republican party, they hold both the senate and the house of congress so they're not exactly staring into the abyss. If you think the election is such a lock, I recommend you avail of the 4/6 offered by Ladbrokes on a Democratic win in the presidential race.

Overheal

c_man wrote: »

What do you guys think of Sanders age being an issue? He's 74 now (so would be 75 taking office), is that too old? At the very least it would make his choice of VP that bit more important imo.

Seems pretty spry imo

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

First Up

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Making money is still legal in the US; in fact it is considered patriotic - even for Democrats.

Clinton's career as an activist dating back to her college days, her time as a Senator and as Secretary of State are vastly more relevant than her brief dabble in the commodities market.

Your attempts to paint her as Gordon Gekko's wicked stepmother are bordering on the farcical. If that's the best you can do.....

First Up

matthew8 wrote: »

Which 240/250 are the Democrats a lock for? They're not a lock in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota anymore. It's highly unlikely the republicans win the popular vote but lose the presidency, it would only happen if they won the popular vote by a tiny margin. As for the future relevance of the republican party, they hold both the senate and the house of congress so they're not exactly staring into the abyss. If you think the election is such a lock, I recommend you avail of the 4/6 offered by Ladbrokes on a Democratic win in the presidential race.

I’d put only Ohio, Florida and Virginia in “toss up” range along with a few smaller ones like Nevada, Colorado and Iowa. (New Hampshire always treasures its 4 votes.) If you were a GOP optimist you might put Pennsylvania and maybe Wisconsin in there too but I wouldn’t. Trump has almost certainly talked his way out of Florida and maybe even Arizona which would normally be safe GOP territory. And with Palin now on board the ship of fools, all those Dem leaning States are going to lean a little further.

The long term worry for the GOP is how far Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Palin etc. are dragging them into wing-nut territory and ever further beyond the reach of a voter majority. Have you seen Rubio’s latest campaign ad espousing his religious credentials? I mean here is an election (like any other) that is 75% about the economy and 25% about all the other stuff and this is what the sanest of the three GOP candidates thinks the electorate needs to hear?

Clinton at 4/6? Well you can only get 5/6 with Paddy Power so maybe I should grab those Ladbroke odds before they shorten even more. As with 2012, the media will try to pretend this is a serious contest right up to election night. It isn’t but sure we’ll all play along.

Colonialboy

Veiled endorsement from Pat Buchanan for Trump
Trumps campaign is highlighting the same issues Buchanan rasied in his campaign in 92 and 96. Buchana is a very shrewd and insightful commentator.

As I’ve watched and listened to Donald Trump’s campaign pitch over the past few months, I am regularly reminded of the Republican presidential primary campaigns that Pat Buchanan ran in the 1990s. Buchanan ran as a “pitchfork populist” in those elections, an outsider fed up with the way both parties did their business in Washington.


http://buchanan.org/blog/124610-124610

What Trump has today is conclusive evidence to prove that what some of us warned about in the 1990s has come to pass.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Seems pretty spry imo

With a notable absence of security. Vote for this guy and you lose the body guard protection everyone else seems to have. He is the least safety conscious candidate in this entire election campaign. Anyone could give him a punch and after all he is an endangered species an American Socialist.

my friend

First Up wrote: »

Making money is still legal in the US; in fact it is considered patriotic - even for Democrats.

Clinton's career as an activist dating back to her college days, her time as a Senator and as Secretary of State are vastly more relevant than her brief dabble in the commodities market.

Your attempts to paint her as Gordon Gekko's wicked stepmother are bordering on the farcical. If that's the best you can do.....

Mine and permabears points once again making headlines in mainstream media, namely the NYT

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.ie/

Hillary can't disappear the hypocrisy

ancapailldorcha

Colonialboy, you were told not to post in this thread again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

First Up

my friend wrote: »

Mine and permabears points once again making headlines in mainstream media, namely the NYT

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.ie/

Hillary can't disappear the hypocrisy

Yesterday it was being a "speculator", today its about women.

I think you lads need a new shipment of straws to clutch; you really think Clinton's "past" is going to drive women voters into the arms of a misogynist like Trump?

my friend

another soft interview from Clinton pals NPR where the detail of the classic Clinton lying style wasn't deconstructed...

HC

"As the State Department has confirmed, I never sent or received any material marked classified, and that hasn't changed in all of these months," she maintained. "This, seems to me, to be, you know, another effort to inject this into the campaign. It's another leak."

I never sent or received any material marked classified

which in classic Clinton lying style is a half truth as Hillary ORDERED the marked classified headings removed

see here: http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillary-e-mail2.jpg

'If they can't, turn into non paper w no identifying heading and send non secure'

so, technically she never sent or received any material 'marked' classified BUT she did send classified material by non secure means and actually instructed underlings to do so

shame on NPR for their poor interview and failure to pull HRC on her lies

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/20/463730125/-top-secret-email-revelation-changes-nothing-clinton-says

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Right, next time I see a one-liner or pointless post, they're getting infracted. If all you can add is monosyllables to an otherwise fascinating debate, don't bother posting.