2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

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.

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe Trump, if elected, would build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it?

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe Trump, if elected, would build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it?

You didn't ask me that question so don't accuse me of dodging a question you didn't ask.

No I don't. I think he's signalling to voters that he puts American interest first every time. Obama is someone who sees Americans as no more important than Mexicans or anyone else. Trump sees things differently.

To respond to the person above, the idea that getting American companies to stay in the US would destroy the country is absurd. China does the same and it helps them economically not hurts them. Some measure of protectionism might hurt the global economy overall but America would come out strongest at the expense of China. Some people don't realise how high the stakes are in terms of Chinese dominance. Some day we'll want America back as the dominant superpower.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

walshyn93

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What could damage the country and the world even more would be China being the worlds #1 superpower. Are we all Thatcherites? Is money the only thing that matters?

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

What could damage the country and the world even more would be China being the worlds #1 superpower. Are we all Thatcherites? Is money the only thing that matters?

Trump's entire campaign is based on his record and reputation as a businessman, which is entirely about money. He's said himself that for most of his life all he's cared about is money.

I've heard so many supporters and campaign people say something along the lines of 'he knows how to run a good business, and he'll run this country like one if he's elected'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Was flicking between channels on Friday night saw him hosting a reality tv show. He was discussing the performance of the magician Jillette Penn and the guy who played the Hulk on some task.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The author of the report that WSJ article was based on has complained that his research was misrepresented. His conclusion actually was that Sanders plan would save the country money but that was omitted in favour of a hit piece.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Did Jim Webb refuse to take part in the debate? Did he organise his own rally the same night? Did he imply the moderator was menstruating during a debate and that's why she was "hard" on him? Another case of false equivalence.

The rest of the post is ad hominem.

walshyn93

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The economy is important but focusing on the economy at the expense of the balance of power in the world, national identity and all these other mostly intangible things is not seeing the wood for the trees.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Trump's entire campaign is based on his record and reputation as a businessman, which is entirely about money. He's said himself that for most of his life all he's cared about is money.

I've heard so many supporters and campaign people say something along the lines of 'he knows how to run a good business, and he'll run this country like one if he's elected'.

That's just not a good argument.

walshyn93

20Cent wrote: »

Did Jim Webb refuse to take part in the debate? Did he organise his own rally the same night? Did he imply the moderator was menstruating during a debate and that's why she was "hard" on him? Another case of false equivalence.

The rest of the post is ad hominem.

He made the exact same "blood coming out of her eyes" comment about Neil Cavuto. Not a sexist comment.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

...

oscarBravo wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe Trump, if elected, would build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it?

walshyn93 wrote: »

You didn't ask me that question so don't accuse me of dodging a question you didn't ask.

I did, but thank you for answering it the second time.

No I don't. I think he's signalling to voters that he puts American interest first every time.

So he's lying about that, and that's OK with you. You're happy to support a politician who's saying something you know isn't true, and that you know he knows isn't true.

Which is fair enough, I guess, as long as you never, ever condemn any other candidate for a lack of honesty.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

He made the exact same "blood coming out of her eyes" comment about Neil Cavuto. Not a sexist comment.

I'm still curious about this. You seem very, very confident that you know what Trump means; you're even happy to ignore what he actually says, because you're confident that what you believe he means is something you're willing to get behind.

How, exactly, do you get to be so sure about what someone you've cheerfully admitted is a habitual liar actually means by what he says?

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

So he's lying about that, and that's OK with you. You're happy to support a politician who's saying something you know isn't true, and that you know he knows isn't true.

Which is fair enough, I guess, as long as you never, ever condemn any other candidate for a lack of honesty.

Some lies are worse than others. There's no equivalence to be made between Trump's lies, Sanders' lies and the type of lies made by Hillary.

When Trump says he's going to build a wall but actually he just bolsters the border patrol, maybe builds some of a wall in some parts and uses drone technology to be just as effective as a wall anyway that's not a damaging lie because we all got what we wanted in the end. And I think there's still probably a 20% chance he builds the wall exactly the way he says he will.

When Hillary blames a video and calls it a protest when actually it was a sign of the unravelling of their foreign policy and does so to avoid giving Romney proof that what he has been predicting regarding their foreign policy is starting to happen. That's damaging. Very damaging indeed.

When she tries to paper over the cracks of the failed state she and Obama created in Libya for the 57 days until the election so that the public make an uninformed decision at the polls. That's damaging.

Hillary's lies are closer to Bush's WMD lies than Trump's wall lies. Like I said, you just need some perspective.

Put it this way, will Trump be hauled before congress if he doesn't build a wall? If not then we're dealing with a different magnitude of lie.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm still curious about this. You seem very, very confident that you know what Trump means; you're even happy to ignore what he actually says, because you're confident that what you believe he means is something you're willing to get behind.

How, exactly, do you get to be so sure about what someone you've cheerfully admitted is a habitual liar actually means by what he says?

You seem equally confident that you know what he means too and you readily admit that he's a habitual liar. In fact seems to think they know what he means.

BoJack Horseman

walshyn93 wrote: »

The economy is important but focusing on the economy at the expense of the balance of power in the world, national identity and all these other mostly intangible things is not seeing the wood for the trees.

Do you mean defence policy?

walshyn93

Brilliant interview with Trump. Gets into foreign policy after about 10 mins with some throwbacks to his very consistent stance on Iraq.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPkHW0mA8O4

walshyn93

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Do you mean defence policy?

Not necessarily, but weakening China economically could be a useful play in terms of shoring up America's dominance. I can't say exactly how but defending free trade religiously is irrational. Everything has to be on the table.

BoJack Horseman

walshyn93 wrote: »

Not necessarily

But even so..... America's dominance militarily is certainly being challenged and is no longer overwhelming.

Looking a little into what the Dems & the gaggle of GOPs are offering, well... it's not much, I would say it just continues Obama's policy of decline.

I see where you are coming from, American people do (to an extent) take pride in their country's role in the world.

BoJack Horseman

walshyn93 wrote: »

Brilliant interview with Trump.

It was ok....

It highlighted something that I notice a sometimes form Obama, but more so from the likes of David Cameron...

Why on earth do you tell your enemies what you will & will not do wrt a military engagement?
It's so stupid.
Cameron tells ISIS..."we will do X, but not X+Y".
So in effect, if the enemy can ride out "X" they have won, cos Dave has said he'll go no further.

walshyn93

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It was ok....

It highlighted something that I notice a sometimes form Obama, but more so from the likes of David Cameron...

Why on earth do you tell your enemies what you will & will not do wrt a military engagement?
It's so stupid.
Cameron tells ISIS..."we will do X, but not X+Y".
So in effect, if the enemy can ride out "X" they have won, cos Dave has said he'll go no further.

It's absurd isn't it. It's also a coincidence that Trump looks exactly like General Patton.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

As you can see I usually make an effort to type out a decent response but sometimes it's just a waste of time.

That's because you have no answer.

A Trump supporter who complains about people prioritizing money over other aims is really a sight to behold, considering Trump's spent the past 50yrs or so doing exactly that, and the main reason people are voting for him (aside from his charisma and entertainment) is because of this.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That's because you have no answer.

A Trump supporter who complains about people prioritizing money over other aims is really a sight to behold, considering Trump's spent the past 50yrs or so doing exactly that, and the main reason people are voting for him (aside from his charisma and entertainment) is because of this.

Again you're just making spurious connections between public policy and personal financial gain in the private sector. It's really not worth the effort to respond.

Black Swan

Five recent polls show Trump ahead in Iowa against all Republican contenders. Tomorrow the Iowa caucus will occur (Monday 1 February 2016), which will allow us to compare the prior poll numbers with the actual results. The media across the pond has been speculating that such polls may be over-representating the lead Trump may have in that Trump supporters may not show in sufficient numbers at the Iowa caucus. Methinks they will show fueled by the anger, frustration, bigotry, and divisiveness that Trump fans inflaming his supporters.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

Some lies are worse than others. There's no equivalence to be made between Trump's lies, Sanders' lies and the type of lies made by Hillary.

Why? Because when Trump lies, he's telling you what you want to hear? Because of confirmation bias?

What makes Democratic candidates' lies worse than Republican candidates' lies, other than naked partisanship?

When Trump says he's going to build a wall but actually he just bolsters the border patrol, maybe builds some of a wall in some parts and uses drone technology to be just as effective as a wall anyway that's not a damaging lie because we all got what we wanted in the end. And I think there's still probably a 20% chance he builds the wall exactly the way he says he will.

OK, so we've established that you're happy to vote for someone who talks in metaphors. When he says he'll make Mexico pay for it, is that a metaphor too?

At what point does his bluster become just another politician blowing smoke up the voters' ass, and stop being something for which he's lauded as something somehow new and refreshing?

Put it this way, will Trump be hauled before congress if he doesn't build a wall?

Probably not. But it's interesting that you seem to believe that someone who lies through his teeth with practically every breath while running for office will never say anything that could lead to a congressional hearing if actually elected.

BoJack Horseman

Black Swan wrote: »

Five recent polls show Trump ahead in Iowa against all Republican contenders. Tomorrow the Iowa caucus will occur (Monday 1 February 2016), which will allow us to compare the prior poll numbers with the actual results. The media across the pond has been speculating that such polls may be over-representating the lead Trump may have in that Trump supporters may not show in sufficient numbers at the Iowa caucus. Methinks they will show fueled by the anger, frustration, and divisiveness that Trump fans to inflame in his supporters.

Am I right in saying that a 'caucus' is a public show of hands in a private setting by certain members of the party?

It's not a normal private ballot in some community hall available to a wider group?

If the former is so, I do think Trump will be less successful.
The party die-hards are more likely to have their own choice rather than the more transient-come-lately Trump, whose support seems to be more 'aah sure f*ck it, why not' vibe?

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

Again you're just making spurious connections between public policy and personal financial gain in the private sector. It's really not worth the effort to respond.

How is it spurious to spot the contradiction in you supporting Trump, a man who most people want elected because he knows business well and thus should know how to run Govt. finances well?

Anything economy-related is backed by his business record Trump's only foreign policy pro's are his business interests and his constant references to the 'The Art of the Deal'. His entire campaign and following is based around money, and yet you have a problem with prioritizing money and the economy.

I think you may be supporting the wrong candidate.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Because when Trump lies, he's telling you what you want to hear? Because of confirmation bias?

What makes Democratic candidates' lies worse than Republican candidates' lies, other than naked partisanship? OK, so we've established that you're happy to vote for someone who talks in metaphors. When he says he'll make Mexico pay for it, is that a metaphor too?

At what point does his bluster become just another politician blowing smoke up the voters' ass, and stop being something for which he's lauded as something somehow new and refreshing? Probably not. But it's interesting that you seem to believe that someone who lies through his teeth with practically every breath while running for office will never say anything that could lead to a congressional hearing if actually elected.

Why are his lies less damaging? I've already explained why in that very comment and you deliberately omitted to quote it in your response. I explained in great detail the difference in the level of damage caused between the different types of lies and will not pointlessly do it again.

This is not a partisan issue since I clearly referred to Bush's WMD lie as being the most damaging type of lie ranking it above Hillary's lie which I rank far far above Trump's wall bravado (at this point not a proven lie) so don't try to make it partisan when its not.

I have to think you just didn't read my entire comment and ignored the bits you didn't like. You do exactly what you accuse me of doing. You should make the same effort to explain why you ignored the rest of my comment as I have made to explain my comments to you. I think one of us is trying harder than the other to be upfront and the other is deliberately misrepresenting. It's strange though, because I don't know you and you have nothing to prove to me.

If you're not going to make the effort to meet me half way in this discussion I'm not going to continue with it.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

How is it spurious to spot the contradiction in you supporting Trump, a man who most people want elected because he knows business well and thus should know how to run Govt. finances well?

Anything economy-related is backed by his business record Trump's only foreign policy pro's are his business interests and his constant references to the 'The Art of the Deal'. His entire campaign and following is based around money, and yet you have a problem with prioritizing money and the economy.

I think you may be supporting the wrong candidate.

You're making a complete strawman argument that Trump's only offering his business expertise.

Trump has demonstrated a very common sense approach to foreign policy. He uses a lot of bravado in his rallies, but when he's one on one with an interviewer he gets down to brass tacks. He seems follow the strongman theory of foreign policy. Keep people like Assad in power to keep a lid on extremism rather than creating the type of power vacuums that have allowed terrorism to fester. Terrorists are having a field day, training out in the open, getting real practice against real armies. That wouldn't be happening without the destabilising effect of US interventionism.

He also seems to want better cooperation and openness with Russia. Something that Obama has set back decades with his terrible relationship with Putin.

He's a man who treats his allies well and is tough on his enemies. Obama has flip-flopped on his allies, pissed them off and done deals with his enemies that his allies don't like. They say your enemies can't hurt you but your friends can. Trump is a man who understands this and by strengthening America's soft-power they can avoid using their hard-power.

He realises that details bore people so he doesn't go into them too much, but when he does in some interviews he demonstrates an acumen that surprises most people.

Thargor

walshyn93 wrote: »

Brilliant interview with Trump. Gets into foreign policy after about 10 mins with some throwbacks to his very consistent stance on Iraq.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPkHW0mA8O4

I was going to flick through that for the general gist of it but I had to restart and watch the whole thing, a brilliant interview alright, maybe the best I've ever seen with a modern politician tbh. Wolf sounded a bit scared of the non-fluff answers.

Why does he have to come out with the stupid sh1t about Mexicans and all the rest though? He wont win alienating Latinos and women.