2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

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.

My argument that Mexico allows its criminals to escape to the US to save money on keeping them in prison is based on logic rather than documentary evidence that could only possibly come from the Mexican government itself or spies within it.

But what is actually happening is in a thread on the US presidential race I'm not allowed to support the claims of one of the candidates.

walshyn93

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The bolded statement is so Orwellian its scary. Politifact, apparently an independent fact checking organisation pretends it doesn't know that the government crime statistics hide illegal immigrant crime within native citizen crime. There are two categories, immigrant (legal) and everyone else including illegals. Politifact says "the facts just aren't there" but it's because they're being suppressed.

According to 2000 census figures only 4% of inmates were immigrants legal and illegal. As I've posted above an outside audit showed that between 20-22% of inmates were immigrants. Politifact takes the official figures as gospel when official figures are in fact cooked.

Amazingfun

THREE Trump events today

One on now, almost over:

Amazingfun

I adore the man, have watched every single one of his events to date, hope he sweeps IOWA on Monday---exciting times!!!!!!!!!!

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

My argument that Mexico allows its criminals to escape to the US to save money on keeping them in prison is based on logic rather than documentary evidence that could only possibly come from the Mexican government itself or spies within it.

But what is actually happening is in a thread on the US presidential race I'm not allowed to support the claims of one of the candidates.

Mod:

Nope, you've made your point, but you can't provide back up for it, despite requests to do so.

What you are being asked to do is, move onto another point unless you can back up your claims to perfectly reasonable requests to do so.

walshyn93

Hillary was asked by NBC whether holding a fundraiser with a financial firm a few days out from Iowa was a mistake. Her response?

"I am proud to have such a broad base of support."


It's over, she's done.

walshyn93

Hillary was asked by NBC whether holding a fundraiser with a financial firm a few days out from Iowa was a mistake. Her response?

"I am proud to have such a broad base of support."


It's over, she's done.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Well the liberal leaning NY Times has endorsed the following: Clinton & Kasich for their respective parties.

walshyn93

Manach wrote: »

Well the liberal leaning NY Times has endorsed the following: Clinton & Kasich for their respective parties.

What's a newspaper doing endorsing candidates. What a joke.

Manach

Well newspapers endorsing a candidate is fairly normal practice in most areas. However, in the case of Kasich being praised for his ability to compromise by such a source is rather a mixed blessing.

walshyn93

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The reason minorities aren't going for Sanders is because they don't know him. In South Carolina 3 months ago 4% of blacks supported him now it's 20%. All it took was for him to get to know him. He's the legacy of Martin Luther King. If Sanders had the publicity that Trump has had he'd be polling through the roof with blacks.

Brian?

walshyn93 wrote: »

What's a newspaper doing endorsing candidates. What a joke.

Newspapers endorse candidates all of the time, it's fairly standard. Why the disbelief?

The Murdoch group endorsed Blair for his first election win as far as I recall.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The "but they do it too" excuse.
Sorry but there is only one party who's leading candidate is a reality tv show star. Who makes promises and claims that are demonstrably untrue and or impossible. Who have a high ranking member making incomprehensible shill speeches which can be transcribed word for word into comedy sketches. Who deny realities such as global warming and the daily gun massacres in the US.

Trump won't get the nomination the establishment won't let him. He might go it alone despite saying he wouldn't at first. They can't even have debates together without one candidate throwing a hissy fit.

It is a false equivalence to try and say the democrats are in a similar state.
Republicans who are sensible, conservative and serious must be holding their heads in their heads in their hands watching this cars crash.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

He was insulting John McCain not anyone else, because John McCain attacked him. It's not self-deception to say I don't believe he actually doesn't like people because they were captured, that would be an illogical criteria.

Let's look at his actual words:

"He's not a war hero," Trump said. "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."

You're now claiming that he means something other than what he said. There's a word for people who say things that they don't mean: they're called liars.

And this goes back to my point: people seem to be able to support Trump not because of what he says, but because of what they decide he means. In other words, they support him because they think he doesn't mean the things he says.

Sorry, but that's still deeply troubling to me.

As for attacking Fiorina on her looks, he knows what draws the crowds to his rallies.

So, again: you're saying that he said something that he doesn't believe, and that this is an admirable trait in a politician?

You're judging a candidate on how good a liar he is? Seriously?

People who say "he can't" do this that or the other. !He can't debate without insults" are really letting themselves down. The man is extremely intelligent and knows what works and what doesn't.

How do you know? What's the visible differentiator between someone who only knows how to toss insults around, and someone "extremely intelligent" who has decided that the most effective strategy he can think of is to toss insults around?

That aside, there's something very disturbing about the idea that the most effective way to win an election is through assholery.

If he starts talking facts and figures now he becomes like one of the other 16 candidates. i.e. boring.

This may have escaped your notice, but this isn't a reality TV show.

At least, it shouldn't be.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's look at his actual words:

"He's not a war hero," Trump said. "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."

You're now claiming that he means something other than what he said. There's a word for people who say things that they don't mean: they're called liars.

And this goes back to my point: people seem to be able to support Trump not because of what he says, but because of what they decide he means. In other words, they support him because they think he doesn't mean the things he says.

Sorry, but that's still deeply troubling to me. So, again: you're saying that he said something that he doesn't believe, and that this is an admirable trait in a politician?

You're judging a candidate on how good a liar he is? Seriously? How do you know? What's the visible differentiator between someone who only knows how to toss insults around, and someone "extremely intelligent" who has decided that the most effective strategy he can think of is to toss insults around?

That aside, there's something very disturbing about the idea that the most effective way to win an election is through assholery. This may have escaped your notice, but this isn't a reality TV show.

At least, it shouldn't be.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. That's how I've always judged politicians and I think a lot of people consciously or unconsciously sift through the BS with all politicians. No I'm not judging him on "how good a liar he is" and you know it, so why misrepresent? Everyone wants to pretend that the other side is more of a liar than the other, whereas I accept lies as a given in politics. I don't judge people based on what they say at face value, I understand that some of what they say will be lies but I try and figure out what they really mean and decide whether I'm okay with it.

Take Hillary for example. The number one word associated with Hillary is "dishonest", yet some of these people still support her. I don't hear anyone talking about how "dangerous" it is that people are supporting a known liar. That's because they see Hillary as a typical politician, whereas atypical politicians are more likely to be called "radical" if they're on the left and "dangerous" if they're on the right. It's lunacy that someone can get away with lying with impunity if only they have no discernible values, ideology or personality.

If you want to look at the reasons behind the lies I think Hillary comes across as considerably more evil. Take the Benghazi lie. She told everyone it was a protest because of a video when she knew it wasn't. Why? Because there was an election in 57 days and the Obama foreign policy was beginning to unravel and their creation of a failed state in Libya would become an election issue. They could live with a video. That won't hurt them. But a terrorist attack on an embassy? That's a sign that Obama's foreign policy was unravelling. Because the truth wasn't known during the election Joe Biden laughed through Paul Ryan's assertions that their foreign policy was unravelling and said it was ridiculous, scare mongering but we now know it to be true. ISIS emerged the very next year. Hillary's lies are more damaging to the world than Trump insulting John McCain.

I just thought you needed some perspective.

walshyn93

20Cent wrote: »

The "but they do it too" excuse.
Sorry but there is only one party who's leading candidate is a reality tv show star. Who makes promises and claims that are demonstrably untrue and or impossible. Who have a high ranking member making incomprehensible shill speeches which can be transcribed word for word into comedy sketches. Who deny realities such as global warming and the daily gun massacres in the US.

Trump won't get the nomination the establishment won't let him. He might go it alone despite saying he wouldn't at first. They can't even have debates together without one candidate throwing a hissy fit.

It is a false equivalence to try and say the democrats are in a similar state.
Republicans who are sensible, conservative and serious must be holding their heads in their heads in their hands watching this cars crash.

Trump has 45% in some polls with about 13 candidates. He successfully avoided an ambush at the FOX debates because he's a strategic genius. People noticed that. They want someone with the brains to know when to go in and when to pull back. If America knew when not to go in the Middle East wouldn't be a disaster. I don't think someone like Trump would have intervened in Libya. And there's absolutely zero chance of him starting a war to protect the interest of his corporate donors.

And anyone who would consider voting for Hillary needs to realise that she's a prime target for blackmail.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

Is it?

If you can claim to support a politician who says things you disagree with on the grounds that you don't believe that that politician actually means those things... I don't understand how you can have a rational basis for assessing which politician to support.

Let's go with your strategy, and assume that no politician ever means anything they say. On that basis, why not support Bernie Sanders? All you have to is decide that he doesn't mean any of that stuff he says about social democracy, and that he could actually be a hardcore right-wing conservative at heart. Therefore, you should vote for him.

That would be... how shall I put this? Stupid? No, that doesn't quite cut it. Bat**** insane? That's closer.

The idea that you can assess a candidate by ignoring what he says and instead judge him on what you have decided - in the total absence of any evidence - that he probably believes, is, frankly, nuts.

The one thing I will say is that it's about the only thing that could possibly explain the popularity of a candidate like Trump, so maybe you're on to something.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it?

If you can claim to support a politician who says things you disagree with on the grounds that you don't believe that that politician actually means those things... I don't understand how you can have a rational basis for assessing which politician to support.

Let's go with your strategy, and assume that no politician ever means anything they say. On that basis, why not support Bernie Sanders? All you have to is decide that he doesn't mean any of that stuff he says about social democracy, and that he could actually be a hardcore right-wing conservative at heart. Therefore, you should vote for him.

That would be... how shall I put this? Stupid? No, that doesn't quite cut it. Bat**** insane? That's closer.

The idea that you can assess a candidate by ignoring what he says and instead judge him on what you have decided - in the total absence of any evidence - that he probably believes, is, frankly, nuts.

The one thing I will say is that it's about the only thing that could possibly explain the popularity of a candidate like Trump, so maybe you're on to something.

Yeah, you're being over-the-top and misrepresenting everything I say. Maybe go off and calm down for a bit and come back to debate rationally.

walshyn93

What I'm advocating, and Oscar seems to have missed this point, is using your own judgement rather than taking politicians at face value. He thinks this is bat **** insane because he doesn't like Trump and wants to smear those who do any way he can.

In his mind the only way Trump can lose is if everyone takes everything he says literally so he wants to ridicule anyone who looks at what he says with a bit of nuance.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

What I'm advocating, and Oscar seems to have missed this point, is using your own judgement rather than taking politicians at face value.

In other words, don't judge politicians by what they say, but by what you personally think they mean. Is that a fair assessment?

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, don't judge politicians by what they say, but by what you personally think they mean. Is that a fair assessment?

No it's not a fair assessment because judgement is about using your brain as well as your eyes and ears.

Are you telling me that if a politician says something like "I'm going to cut taxes" you believe they mean it no matter what? You don't use your own brain to judge for yourself?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

No it's not a fair assessment because judgement is about using your brain as well as your eyes and ears.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

Are you telling me that if a politician says something like "I'm going to cut taxes" you believe they mean it no matter what? You don't use your own brain to judge for yourself?

If a politician says that, it gives an indication as to where they stand in relation to tax policy. Will they cut taxes? Maybe, if it's practical to do so.

If a politician says "I'm going to build a wall between the US and Mexico and make Mexico pay for it", do you think he genuinely believes he can do so, or do you believe that he's lying and knows that it won't happen?

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

That doesn't contradict what I said. If a politician says that, it gives an indication as to where they stand in relation to tax policy. Will they cut taxes? Maybe, if it's practical to do so.

If a politician says "I'm going to build a wall between the US and Mexico and make Mexico pay for it", do you think he genuinely believes he can do so, or do you believe that he's lying and knows that it won't happen?

Yes it does contradict what you said. What you said was "don't judge politicians by what they say, but by what you personally think they mean." That's a false dichotomy because you can do both. In fact I don't think you can do one without the other. It's a nonsensical simplification and misrepresentation.

Saying he's going to build a wall is more effectively conveying his stance on illegal immigration than how Jeb, Rubio and Cruz presented their original plans to police the border. It's in the same league as saying you're going to cut taxes. You can call it outlandish or a lie but then saying you're going to cut taxes when you know you can't also a lie. Essentially you've accepted my method of assessing politicians you just don't think I should apply it to Trump's statements.

What's interesting is that everyone in the Republican race is now dancing to Trump's tune on illegal immigration because he came out strongest and set the tone. It resonated with people. But no one believes them when they say they're tough on immigration because you can't really top what he's already said without going way overboard. You don't like that because you don't like him, but its undeniably effective.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Identifying Trump as "a reality TV show star" is a transparent effort at petty trivialization, akin to the Fox News pundits who repeatedly referred to Barack Obama as a "community organizer" back in 2008.

Who makes promises and claims that are demonstrably untrue and or impossible.

Yes, he does. And Bernie Sanders also makes promises that are fiscally impossible: the Wall Street Journal estimates the price tax of his proposals at $18 trillion. But we don't hear you complaining about the unrealistic nature of Sanders' promises.

They can't even have debates together without one candidate throwing a hissy fit.

When Jim Webb complained back in October that CNN had "rigged the debate" in favor of Clinton and Sanders, I don't recall you complaining that anyone was "throwing a hissy fit."

Not for the first time, your response to my post espouses a simplistic "Beavis & Butthead" approach to politics, in which a party either "rules" or "sucks" and there is no middle ground to be explored. Seriously, do you intend to spend the next nine months cheerleading for Democrats while throwing mud at Republicans, and shouting down anyone who suggests that there could be any nuance or texture to this race?[/quote]
Add your reply here.

In a lot of ways I agree with what you're saying. It's far too easy to paint the GOP as a bunch on lunatics. There are fine upstanding people in the GOP who deserve respect, even if I find their political beliefs contrary to my own.

The problem is that it's easy to paint them as lunatics because the leading contenders for the nomination all court the lunatic vote. It's not just Trump, it's Cruz and Carson as well. Although, praise Allah, Carson seems to be fading.

My first hand experience of GOP voters is that they're good, honet people but misguided and poorly informed. They fear change and are easy to manipulate because of it. Ironically I have far fewer registered Democrat friends that registered Republican. I'm convinced I can turn most of them into Reds like myself though, given the time.

I'm glad I'm not living in the US for this election cycle. The situation seems to be overheated by rhetoric. Issues simply aren't on the table for.discussion as far as I can see.

That's a long post right there.

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

Add your reply here.

In a lot of ways I agree with what you're saying. It's far too easy to paint the GOP as a bunch on lunatics. There are fine upstanding people in the GOP who deserve respect, even if I find their political beliefs contrary to my own.

The problem is that it's easy to paint them as lunatics because the leading contenders for the nomination all court the lunatic vote. It's not just Trump, it's Cruz and Carson as well. Although, praise Allah, Carson seems to be fading.

My first hand experience of GOP voters is that they're good, honet people but misguided and poorly informed. They fear change and are easy to manipulate because of it. Ironically I have far fewer registered Democrat friends that registered Republican. I'm convinced I can turn most of them into Reds like myself though, given the time.

I'm glad I'm not living in the US for this election cycle. The situation seems to be overheated by rhetoric. Issues simply aren't on the table for.discussion as far as I can see.

That's a long post right there.

I find Democrat supporters to be grossly misinformed nearly all the time and love to see the looks on their faces when they hear some actual facts or learn that some of the facts they believe in are not facts. It's probably more noticeable when people are misinformed on the issues that are important to you.