2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

nokia69

20Cent wrote: »

You mean the party that respects them and doesn't call them criminals and rapists?

I don't thing you really understand the US or the Republican and Democratic parties, if you just think one side is evil and the other side always good then its obvious your knowledge of the issue is pretty shallow

Keep getting your information from the irish times and RTE

20Cent

nokia69 wrote: »

I don't thing you really understand the US or the Republican and Democratic parties, if you just think one side is evil and the other side always good then its obvious your knowledge of the issue is pretty shallow

Keep getting your information from the irish times and RTE

Don't think that at all.
Or get information from those sources.

walshyn93

nokia69 wrote: »

I don't thing you really understand the US or the Republican and Democratic parties, if you just think one side is evil and the other side always good then its obvious your knowledge of the issue is pretty shallow

Keep getting your information from the irish times and RTE

According to Alan Dershowitz a Clintonite liberal law professor at Harvard law, Ted Cruz was "off the charts brilliant" and the best student he ever had. When someone brought this up on Morning Ireland a few weeks ago there was an awkward silence and everyone went back to tearing lumps out of the Republicans. RTÉ is disgracefully partisan towards the Democrats.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

Evidence of what? That it's extremely difficult to catch voter fraud after the fact and prevention is better than a cure?

That it's almost non-existent, and you've ignored the stats which show it and even the judges who agree with me. The only cure is to stop traditional Democrats from voting.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

No there wouldn't be any repercussions because it's totally deniable. What they're doing is not pursuing criminals once they cross the border, how can there be any repercussions for that?

It's not in any countries interest to stop its criminals from leaving, which is exactly why you need a secure border.

This is the fallacy that some people fall into. They demand that everything be proven to them by the authorities and completely surrender their own faculties to the government. Until a government agency says this is happening you won't believe it.

Mexico does not pursue criminals when they cross the border unless they're a threat to national security like El Chapo. Petty criminals, they let them go. They wash their hands of them. You can scream "no evidence" all you want but it won't change the fact that it's happening and there's nothing to stop it.

Your entire point is irrelevant because it doesn't exist, you said it yourself. You have no evidence to prove and therefore what you said was fabricated and what Trump said was a lie. Stop trying to deflect away from this.

walshyn93

20Cent wrote: »

Don't think that at all.
Or get information from those sources.

Well you think the "Republicans" are against Hispanics when Jeb Bush is a republicans and has a Mexican wife, Cruz and Rubio are both Cuban. It's not personality that makes Hispanics vote Democrat it's policy. Handouts and open borders.

To try and generalise Republicans is almost as bad as generalising Mexicans. There are as many Republicans in America as their are Mexicans in America. And we have seen their views differ wildly. Probably even more than the views of some demographics.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Your entire point is irrelevant because it doesn't exist, you said it yourself. You have no evidence to prove and therefore what you said was fabricated and what Trump said was a lie. Stop trying to deflect away from this.

There's no evidence Bill Clinton had sex with minors. But he is on the flight manifest of a private jet to a private Caribbean island with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

But again there's "no evidence" so it didn't happen. Yours is a fallacious argument from ignorance that ignores all the circumstantial evidence to suggest that Mexico is pursuing soft-deportation as a crime reduction strategy.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That it's almost non-existent, and you've ignored the stats which show it and even the judges who agree with me. The only cure is to stop traditional Democrats from voting.

The evidence does not show that its non-existent. You seem to have problems separating the absence of hard evidence from the absence of a problem. It seems less like a psychological problem and more like convenience.

20Cent

walshyn93 wrote: »

Well you think the "Republicans" are against Hispanics when Jeb Bush is a republicans and has a Mexican wife, Cruz and Rubio are both Cuban. It's not personality that makes Hispanics vote Democrat it's policy. Handouts and open borders.

To try and generalise Republicans is almost as bad as generalising Mexicans. There are as many Republicans in America as their are Mexicans in America. And we have seen their views differ wildly. Probably even more than the views of some demographics.

Their leading candidate wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico. He wants to deport a few million Hispanics. So sorry if I think the republicans are anti Hispanic that's the message they are sending. If republicans felt otherwise Bush and Rubio would be higher up in the polls.

walshyn93

20Cent wrote: »

Their leading candidate wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico. He wants to deport a few million Hispanics. So sorry if I think the republicans are anti Hispanic that's the message they are sending. If republicans felt otherwise Bush and Rubio would be higher up in the polls.

Illegal immigrants. He wants to deport illegal immigrants. I'm sure there are plenty of Hispanics living in dangerous neighbourhoods who would like their neighbourhoods to be cleaned up somewhat.

You're the racist for conflating all Hispanics with illegal immigrants. If someone can't get a visa, the real question is why? If someone can't even get through airport security, why? What do they have to hide from the authorities? It can't be the money. A flight from Mexico costs less than 50 dollars some days compared to thousands to be smuggled across the border. Why do it illegally? Why not get a visa and overstay?

Trump is doing better with Hispanics than any Republican candidate since Reagan. This idea that is being promoted by Democrats that Hispanics universally support an open border with Mexico is a subversive lie.

Why do 28% of Hispanics agree with the statement: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

ancapailldorcha

20cent and nokia69, please up the standard of posting. Thanks.

A Primal Nut

Funny to see the more left media loving Fox News all of a sudden:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/29/megyn-kelly-is-a-very-good-debate-moderator-heres-proof/

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

There's no evidence Bill Clinton had sex with minors. But he is on the flight manifest of a private jet to a private Caribbean island with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

But again there's "no evidence" so it didn't happen. Yours is a fallacious argument from ignorance that ignores all the circumstantial evidence to suggest that Mexico is pursuing soft-deportation as a crime reduction strategy.

I don't know what in God's name you're on about or how it's relevant.

Is Bill a paedophile because he once flew with a now-convicted paedophile? Seems a bit ridiculous. Is anyone who was friends with Jimmy Saville or Gary Glitter a paedophile, even though they mightn't have had the faintest of notions they were?

Yours is an argument made up entirely through pre-conceived notions and zero factual evidence. Show me one document that comes from the Mexican govt. directing a strategy to send criminals to America. I don't even know why I'm arguing with you about this, you've already lost Walshy.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

The evidence does not show that its non-existent. You seem to have problems separating the absence of hard evidence from the absence of a problem. It seems less like a psychological problem and more like convenience.

Yes it does, look at it and read the testimony of the Wisconsin judge. At least I have hard facts to back my claims, you have nothing but typical right-wing gutter talk to back yours.

Show me one piece of evidence that shows voter fraud to be a major problem in any state in America. Otherwise you're fighting a losing battle Walshy.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I don't know what in God's name you're on about or how it's relevant.

Is Bill a paedophile because he once flew with a now-convicted paedophile? Seems a bit ridiculous. Is anyone who was friends with Jimmy Saville or Gary Glitter a paedophile, even though they mightn't have had the faintest of notions they were?

Yours is an argument made up entirely through pre-conceived notions and zero factual evidence. Show me one document that comes from the Mexican govt. directing a strategy to send criminals to America. I don't even know why I'm arguing with you about this, you've already lost Walshy.

If you demand documentary evidence that a man is having sex with your wife before you believe it then that makes you a cuck.

Iran tells us they don't want a nuke. There's no documentary evidence they want a nuke so lets just act on the basis that they neither have or want a nuke. Do you now see what a ridiculous way this is to run your foreign policy?

Bill Clinton travelled to 'Orgy Island' with Jeffrey Epstein. It's known that sex parties involving underage girls happened there and there is evidence that Bill Clinton was there multiple times. No documentary evidence that he partook, but if you seriously think he didn't then your opinion on anything is of quite limited value.

davidgrace

It looks like Bernie Sanders is gaining a lot of momentum. He might yet do a "Corbyn" on it, although thankfully he seems more pragmatic than Corbyn. I don't think Hilary is as universally popular as people might have thought. Although she is the favourite still, of course.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yes it does, look at it and read the testimony of the Wisconsin judge. At least I have hard facts to back my claims, you have nothing but typical right-wing gutter talk to back yours.

Show me one piece of evidence that shows voter fraud to be a major problem in any state in America. Otherwise you're fighting a losing battle Walshy.

It doesn't have to be a "major" problem for voter ID laws to be a common sense way to protect the most important civil activity from abuse. I would like to know what you would consider to be a "major problem". Because 300 fraudulent ballots being decide a district which decides a state which decides an election. If every vote counts then take it seriously and demand transparency.

You're against voter ID laws because you want the most uneducated, uninformed people to be dragged out to vote for your favourite party. That sums up the Democrats.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

If you demand documentary evidence that a man is having sex with your wife before you believe it then that makes you a cuck.

Iran tells us they don't want a nuke. There's no documentary evidence they want a nuke so lets just act on the basis that they neither have or want a nuke. Do you now see what a ridiculous way this is to run your foreign policy?

Bill Clinton travelled to 'Orgy Island' with Jeffrey Epstein. It's known that sex parties involving underage girls happened there and there is evidence that Bill Clinton was there multiple times. No documentary evidence that he partook, but if you seriously think he didn't then your opinion on anything is of quite limited value.

Irrelevant nonsense, Walshy.

More irrelevant nonsense, Walshy.

Even more irrelevant nonsense, Walshy.

Address my point and show me one piece of evidence that the Mexican govt. is directing a strategy to send criminals to the US. But there's a problem, isn't there? You have no evidence, so you're going to keep making ridiculous claims, introducing new irrelevant topics in order to try and weasel your way out of this. It might work for Trump but it won't work here.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a "major" problem for voter ID laws to be a common sense way to protect the most important civil activity from abuse. I would like to know what you would consider to be a "major problem". Because 300 fraudulent ballots being decide a district which decides a state which decides an election. If every vote counts then take it seriously and demand transparency.

There are millions of Americans living in poverty, there's an outrageous situation involving campaign contributions, thousands dying each year from gun violence, billions America wastes on wars, and global warming is destroying our planet yet Republicans deny it even exists. There's just some actual 'major problems' for you, not voter fraud which accounts for roughly 0.00001% of votes.

Every vote counts, just not the ones which are for Democrats, according to Republican state legislatures.

nokia69

davidgrace wrote: »

It looks like Bernie Sanders is gaining a lot of momentum. He might yet do a "Corbyn" on it, although thankfully he seems more pragmatic than Corbyn. I don't think Hilary is as universally popular as people might have thought. Although she is the favourite still, of course.

Hillary is widely hated in the US, she is the very last person the Dems should want in the race

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

There are millions of Americans living in poverty, there's an outrageous situation involving campaign contributions, thousands dying each year from gun violence, billions America wastes on wars, and global warming is destroying our planet yet Republicans deny it even exists. There's just some actual 'major problems' for you, not voter fraud which accounts for roughly 0.00001% of votes.

Every vote counts, just not the ones which are for Democrats, according to Republican state legislatures.

Solving voter fraud doesn't come at the expense of those other problems.

walshyn93

nokia69 wrote: »

Hillary is widely hated in the US, she is the very last person the Dems should want in the race

There is a total dearth of personality in the party. The only reason Hillary is considered a viable candidate is because she used to be more conservative and therefore has broader appeal than the likes of Warren. The regressive left has infiltrated the party in every area and now what we have is a former conservative dancing to their tune and an old school socialist senator who gets slandered and lied about by the ungrateful heirs to his generation of the left's legacy.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

Solving voter fraud doesn't come at the expense of those other problems.

No, but my issue is it doesn't make America's situation any better, and in fact makes it worse because it means that millions of Americans can't vote because they don't own a car, don't go to college, have never been abroad etc.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Irrelevant nonsense, Walshy.

More irrelevant nonsense, Walshy.

Even more irrelevant nonsense, Walshy.

Address my point and show me one piece of evidence that the Mexican govt. is directing a strategy to send criminals to the US. But there's a problem, isn't there? You have no evidence, so you're going to keep making ridiculous claims, introducing new irrelevant topics in order to try and weasel your way out of this. It might work for Trump but it won't work here.

None of it is irrelevant. It proves the point that there are some things for which you shouldn't set the bar for evidence too high. If you do you just end up ignoring problems.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No, but my issue is it doesn't make America's situation any better, and in fact makes it worse because it means that millions of Americans can't vote because they don't own a car, don't go to college, have never been abroad etc.

They should apply for a photo ID and be done with it and stop whining. Why isn't this a problem in Ireland? Not everyone has been abroad, not everyone drives a car (in fact fewer people do), not everyone goes to college, yet we never hear complaints? It's because we have respect for democracy and don't tolerate any potential for abuse of the electoral system. Democrats don't so they allow the DOJ to adopt a discriminatory policy for voter intimidation and they leave the polls open to tampering because they know the tampering and the intimidation is in their favour.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

None of it is irrelevant. It proves the point that there are some things for which you shouldn't set the bar for evidence too high. If you do you just end up ignoring problems.

The bar for evidence should always be set high, people like you just see no problem going around calling Bill Clinton a paedophile or making baseless claims about the Mexican Govt.

I've asked you repeatedly to provide evidence to which you've tried several times to drag ridiculous irrelevant (yes calling Bill Clinton a paedophile is irrelevant here) topics into the discussion.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The bar for evidence should always be set high, people like you just see no problem going around calling Bill Clinton a paedophile or making baseless claims about the Mexican Govt.

I've asked you repeatedly to provide evidence to which you've tried several times to drag ridiculous irrelevant (yes calling Bill Clinton a paedophile is irrelevant here) topics into the discussion.

Your bar is set unreasonably high, and it can't always be that high or you'd never believe anything. It must be set there as a matter of convenience to dismiss inconvenient ideas. People believe with good cause that Mexico is allowing fugitives to escape across their northern border because it's what any corrupt nation would do when it's overrun with crime. It makes less sense that they wouldn't do it. It allows them to focus their resources on the cartels. From their point of view it's a smart thing to do and it's totally deniable as you're demonstrating here, so why wouldn't they do it?

I don't think it tells us he's a paedophile. But he didn't go on a private jet with a billionaire yuss facilitator to play chess.

Overheal

Bernie and Hillary agree to 4 more debates in defiance of DNC chair Schultz. I guess Hillary figures she has to quit hiding now that her lead is slipping.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-sanders-campaigns-have-reportedly-agreed-to-four-additional-debates/

walshyn93

http://www.mediaite.com/online/we-investigated-her-legal-background-and-attorney-megyn-kellys-no-bimbo/

It took until she was attacked by a Republican to actually come out and run a positive piece on her defending her. She's been getting this for years. They'd probably do the same for Palin too if she went against the Republican grain.

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

None of it is irrelevant. It proves the point that there are some things for which you shouldn't set the bar for evidence too high. If you do you just end up ignoring problems.

Mod:

As per the politics general charter, if you make a claim it is reasonable and expected you provide back up when requested.

If you can't provide links after repeated requests, I'd suggest dropping making the same claims over and over, The thread will just become a mess with you making the claim, others asking for back up and round and round.