2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

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?

You are correct in noting the marked difference between caucus and primary. If I read the Iowa caucus correctly, supporters of each Republican candidate will group, and when called show hands (rather than primary vote). If the Trump supporters show in the same relative percentage leads as in the 5 most recent polls, then the Trump group should be larger than any other group at the caucus, and will have more hands shown for their candidate. In saying this, methinks that the Trump supporters tend to be a bit more aggressive than those followers of the other Republican candidates, and if this observation has merit, then they will be so accordingly at the Iowa caucus, which may serve to intimidate the GOP leadership to pick Trump.

Of course the various poll results that show Trump ahead and the results of tomorrow's Iowa caucus is like comparing apples with potatoes methodologically, so caution is noted too when comparing results. And in a caucus I do not believe that there is any strict rule that the GOP has to pick the candidate with the largest group or greatest number of hands.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/caucus-vs-primary/

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

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.

That's because it is his only expertise. He's spent his entire life as a businessman and everything he's done has been geared towards earning money. He's never operated as a diplomat and has in fact annoyed people pretty much everywhere he went. He's hated in Scotland so much, Alex Sammond has repeatedly voiced his distaste for him, he lost much of his Arab business partners with his 'Muslim ban', and I don't think he'll have a great relationship with Mexico or central America either.

The problem with the 'strongman policy' is that it solves one problem and opens another. What about human rights abuses? Pandering to dictators? I thought the US was all about encouraging democracy and stopping abuses from happening, is Trump going to abandon these ideals?

Putin set back his own relationship when he took Crimea and propped up Assad because of his arms deals with him.

Manach

I'd know international relations from having done a course on it. On the one hand, the current 8 years have seen a marked improvement on the US role as a "good" international participant : i.e. willing mostly to work within international norms and promote the normal rule of law in terms of treaties - something perhaps Mr. Trump would not have the patience for.

On the other, it has ignored some of its international obligations when it has seemed inconvenient to do so due to domestic issues - case in point Syria where (from reading of various articles) the persecution of religious minorities (Christians etc.) would be categorised as ethnic cleansing however the level of US response is equivalent to that which occurred during much of the break-up of the Former Yugoslavia, a fig leaf of concern and constant efforts to undermine the group that is not actively purging such minorities, Assad's. So the professionalism of the governing consensus on Foreign affairs is also rather lacking.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That's because it is his only expertise. He's spent his entire life as a businessman and everything he's done has been geared towards earning money. He's never operated as a diplomat and has in fact annoyed people pretty much everywhere he went. He's hated in Scotland so much, Alex Sammond has repeatedly voiced his distaste for him, he lost much of his Arab business partners with his 'Muslim ban', and I don't think he'll have a great relationship with Mexico or central America either.

The problem with the 'strongman policy' is that it solves one problem and opens another. What about human rights abuses? Pandering to dictators? I thought the US was all about encouraging democracy and stopping abuses from happening, is Trump going to abandon these ideals?

Putin set back his own relationship when he took Crimea and propped up Assad because of his arms deals with him.

I would hope that America would stop intervening in other countries affairs under the premise of "human rights abuses". Short of genocide or proliferation of WMDs they should not be criticising what Arab leaders in particular do to ensure order in their own countries. We thought we knew better than Gaddafi what was going on in his own country. He tried to warn us and we supported the most depraved scumbags imaginable in trying to depose him and now Libya will be a staging point for raids upon the Mediterranean over the next few decades. Expect night raids like the 2008 Mumbai attacks to happen on little Greek Islands against European tourists. That's what happens when you oppose strong leaders in otherwise dysfunctional countries. Do you honestly think the ME needs weaker leaders with more restraint when it comes to their own national security?

BoJack Horseman

Manach wrote: »

On the other, it has ignored some of its international obligations when it has seemed inconvenient to do so due to domestic issues - case in point Syria where (from reading of various articles) the persecution of religious minorities (Christians etc.) would be categorised as ethnic cleansing however the level of US response is equivalent to that which occurred during much of the break-up of the Former Yugoslavia, a fig leaf of concern and constant efforts to undermine the group that is not actively purging such minorities, Assad's. So the professionalism of the governing consensus on Foreign affairs is also rather lacking.

Unwillingness to intervene in the early stages of the Syrian civil war was exactly what the people wanted though!

It's unfair to criticise the administration for not intervening here.
Obama wanted to build some sort of multilateral intervention, but European leaders declined & faced with very limited support from within his own party & the public/media he put it to bed...

It was the Sinjar catastrophe (the slaughter of a religious minority) in Iraq where the US already had permission to operate that allowed for an intervention.

I wonder if the Iraq-Syria border was 30 miles east & Sinjar was in Syria how different things would have been.


There is the impossible contradiction faced by any American president.
The worlds loaths it for being the 'worlds policeman'.... but no one else will step up either.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That's because it is his only expertise. He's spent his entire life as a businessman and everything he's done has been geared towards earning money. He's never operated as a diplomat and has in fact annoyed people pretty much everywhere he went. He's hated in Scotland so much, Alex Sammond has repeatedly voiced his distaste for him, he lost much of his Arab business partners with his 'Muslim ban', and I don't think he'll have a great relationship with Mexico or central America either.

Alex Sammond is a lefty cuck. He was all over Trump when he was building that golf course.

It's a good thing he lost those Arab business partners. I don't think it's a good idea to have Arab billionaires having that kind of influence over the president. That's what you'll get with Hillary, it's good to see Trump willing to shed that influence early on.

Obama had never operated as a diplomat. Never had much experience of anything, was a first term senator and got elected president. Trump has been in the media for nearly half a century and is a master at it.

Do you think politics is more of a people skills things than business? Everyone who knows Trump personally from his ex wife to immigration advocate Geraldo Rivera says he's a good man. The notion that Trump has no skills at diplomacy shows an ignorance of both business and politics that I think disqualifies anyone from having a respected opinion on this race.

walshyn93

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Unwillingness to intervene in the early stages of the Syrian civil war was exactly what the people wanted though!

It's unfair to criticise the administration for not intervening here.
Obama wanted to build some sort of multilateral intervention, but European leaders declined & faced with very limited support from within his own party & the public/media he put it to bed...

It was the Sinjar catastrophe (the slaughter of a religious minority) in Iraq where the US already had permission to operate that allowed for an intervention.

I wonder if the Iraq-Syria border was 30 miles east & Sinjar was in Syria how different things would have been.


There is the impossible contradiction faced by any American president.
The worlds loaths it for being the 'worlds policeman'.... but no one else will step up either.

It was his fault for leaving Iraq too early. He made America cut and run and diminished it on the world stage. Apparently the Iraqis wanted the Americans gone but he should have had the balls to say "no, you're not ready to go it alone yet." A president with leadership would have first stood up to the American people and told them they had a moral responsibility to stay as long as necessary. Now he tells them they have a moral responsibility to take in refugees, some of whom we know are terrorists trained in territory he vacated.

After he had left and the damage was done he shouldn't have supported the Syrian rebels who's best contribution to peace is to force an Assad retreat to allow ISIS to take over. The man is a foreign policy disaster. Although I can't say Romney would have fared any differently because he advocated arming the rebels too.

Manach

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Unwillingness to intervene in the early stages of the Syrian civil war was exactly what the people wanted though!
...

There is the impossible contradiction faced by any American president.
The worlds loaths it for being the 'worlds policeman'.... but no one else will step up either.

Not really, it is a clear case of ethnic cleansing which should have triggered a legal intervention to at least protect those people on the ground with troops. However domestic politics would have evisterated Obama, so that admin took a pass. Under Obama, the type of far sighted noblese obligie that at times allowed that state (unlike nearly all other great powers) to act other than for short term interest has evapourated like water in the desert - just like minority communities.

walshyn93

Manach wrote: »

Not really, it is a clear case of ethnic cleansing which should have triggered a legal intervention to at least protect those people on the ground with troops. However domestic politics would have evisterated Obama, so that admin took a pass. Under Obama, the type of far sighted noblese obligie that at times allowed that state (unlike nearly all other great powers) to act other than for short term interest has evapourated like water in the desert - just like minority communities.

That's what you get when you have a weak leader. The last three major genocides, Rwana, Srebrenica and the Yazidis have all happened on Democrats watches. Say what you want about Bush, the Bush Doctrine was robust and gave the world a bit of certainty as to how to behave and how not to. You can't police the world if you don't have rules.

He seems to only be good at smugly sticking it to Republicans with glib speeches and poking.

BoJack Horseman

walshyn93 wrote: »

Apparently the Iraqis wanted the Americans gone but he should have had the balls to say "no

Yes, the Iraqi government were keen to be rid of the bulk of US forces and retain a modest remainder.

But you can't have it both ways!

Do you want the rule of law or 'what I say goes'?
If the democratically elected sovereign government of Iraq request the draw-down of US forces, then there is little choice but to comply.

Otherwise it truly is the occupational army that the world considered it anyway.
And what does that say about America's reputation!?

Considering everyone, US especially wanted the drawdown, its just unfair revisionism to consider it folly.

And besides, keeping 150,000 troops kicking back in Iraq would not have stopped ISIS.

It may have impeded them from taking Mosul & Ramadi, but would not have made any difference wrt to Syria, where their bulk of activity has always been.

And besides, even if the bulk of forces left, there are 10,000 US army personnel just a 7 hour drive from Ramadi, sitting over the border in Kuwait!
If these couldn't do a thing to stop ISIS & the CBG in the gulf couldnt & the 7,000 other military personnel in the middle east couldnt do it either, who is to say the lads taken home from Iraq could?
Thing is, at the time, none of them did & none of them could.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

Alex Sammond is a lefty cuck. He was all over Trump when he was building that golf course.

It's a good thing he lost those Arab business partners. I don't think it's a good idea to have Arab billionaires having that kind of influence over the president. That's what you'll get with Hillary, it's good to see Trump willing to shed that influence early on.

Obama had never operated as a diplomat. Never had much experience of anything, was a first term senator and got elected president. Trump has been in the media for nearly half a century and is a master at it.

Do you think politics is more of a people skills things than business? Everyone who knows Trump personally from his ex wife to immigration advocate Geraldo Rivera says he's a good man. The notion that Trump has no skills at diplomacy shows an ignorance of both business and politics that I think disqualifies anyone from having a respected opinion on this race.

Good to see the /pol/ lingo is alive in the thread. And yes, he did flip-flop entirely on him, but it still shows the low opinion Scottish politicians, aswell as most Scots have of him.

This makes no sense at all. Those Arba billionaires weren't donors, they were business partners, and I heard no mention of non-Arab billionaires being shed by Trump, so what about their 'influence'? Another great opportunity used there to bash Hillary though. Good job.

Trump has been a businessman, reality tv clown and nothing more. Don't believe me? here's the presidential candidate himself fighting in the WWE.

His ex-wife once accused him of raping her in a deposition, so I'm not sure that's exactly a glowing recommendation.

I also don't know who made you referee with regard to disqualifying people from having a respected opinion here. You certainly haven't showered yourself in glory with your persistent attempts to smear the Mexican Govt. without providing any proof despite being asked repeatedly.

BoJack Horseman

Manach wrote: »

which should have triggered a legal intervention to at least protect those people on the ground with troops.

And you do know why that didn't happen dont you?

If what you say is true & justified, why weren't there tens of thousands of blue helmets across Syria?

The US intervention in September 14' was in response to ethnic cleansing, but it was in Iraq where they had permission to intervene.
The US had no such cover to intervene & no support for doing so anyway.

The International community was very willing to wash it's hands of it, but somehow that is Obama's fault?

walshyn93

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yes, the Iraqi government were keen to be rid of the bulk of US forces and retain a modest remainder.

But you can't have it both ways!

Do you want the rule of law or 'what I say goes'?
If the democratically elected sovereign government of Iraq request the draw-down of US forces, then there is little choice but to comply.

Otherwise it truly is the occupational army that the world considered it anyway.
And what does that say about America's reputation!?

Considering everyone, US especially wanted the drawdown, its just unfair revisionism to consider it folly.

And besides, keeping 150,000 troops kicking back in Iraq would not have stopped ISIS.

It may have impeded them from taking Mosul & Ramadi, but would not have made any difference wrt to Syria, where their bulk of activity has always been.

And besides, even if the bulk of forces left, there are 10,000 US army personnel just a 7 hour drive from Ramadi, sitting over the border in Kuwait!
If these couldn't do a thing to stop ISIS & the CBG in the gulf couldnt & the 7,000 other military personnel in the middle east couldnt do it either, who is to say the lads taken home from Iraq could?
Thing is, at the time, none of them did & none of them could.

This is just from memory, but I believe they started gaining real power by taking over parts of Iraq if I'm not mistaken. I remember reading about them before anyone else when they were one of the Syrian rebel groups that were "too extreme for Al Qaeda". But as a matter of fact I think the first time they really hit the MSM was when they took over an Iraqi army base with fighter jets and lots of American equipment. So I do believe with good reason that 150,000 American soldiers would have nipped ISIS in the bud and prevented them from becoming anything more than a local rebel group as opposed to a global terror threat.

It's true there's not much you can do if Iraq demands you leave, but you need to use soft-power well enough to prevent them ever making that demand.

I mean if Iraq demands you leave then a few months later invites you back you need to have noticed that they weren't thinking rationally the first time.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Good to see the /pol/ lingo is alive in the thread. And yes, he did flip-flop entirely on him, but it still shows the low opinion Scottish politicians, aswell as most Scots have of him.

This makes no sense at all. Those Arba billionaires weren't donors, they were business partners, and I heard no mention of non-Arab billionaires being shed by Trump, so what about their 'influence'? Another great opportunity used there to bash Hillary though. Good job.

Trump has been a businessman, reality tv clown and nothing more. Don't believe me? here's the presidential candidate himself fighting in the WWE.

His ex-wife once accused him of raping her in a deposition, so I'm not sure that's exactly a glowing recommendation.

I also don't know who made you referee with regard to disqualifying people from having a respected opinion here. You certainly haven't showered yourself in glory with your persistent attempts to smear the Mexican Govt. without providing any proof despite being asked repeatedly.

I never said anything about donors but if someone has business interests with Arab billionaires then that leaves him open to influence by them obviously. And yes I view Arab billionaires with more suspicion than others given their penchant for funding extremist groups and their generally anti-Western sentiments. Hillary has received lots of money for the Clinton Global Initiative from foreign backers while SoS so there's questions over what those people are getting out of it.

His ex wife never accused him of that, why don't you go and provide evidence, because she has repeatedly denied the allegation that he abused her which was likely fabricated by the tabloids and quickly dismissed.

That's a hilarious video. But if that's the best you can do, along with all your lies then it's not much.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

I never said anything about donors but if someone has business interests with Arab billionaires then that leaves him open to influence by them obviously. And yes I view Arab billionaires with more suspicion than others given their penchant for funding extremist groups and their generally anti-Western sentiments. Hillary has received lots of money for the Clinton Global Initiative from foreign backers while SoS so there's questions over what those people are getting out of it.

His ex wife never accused him of that, why don't you go and provide evidence, because she has repeatedly denied the allegation that he abused her which was likely fabricated by the tabloids and quickly dismissed.

That's a hilarious video. But if that's the best you can do, along with all your lies then it's not much.

Trump didn't drop them, they dropped him. Don't try and spin this like he dropped them because he doesn't want to be influenced by Arab billionaires. They dropped him because of his 'muslim ban'.

She asserted it in a deposition which was in the book 'Lost Tycoon'. Here's an article about it. When asked about it Trump's lawyer has also been quoted as saying here:

“It is true,[...]You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

What lies? I've provided evidence for everything I've claimed, while you've just made ridiculous claims, such as the one about the Mexican Govt. without providing a shred of evidence.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Trump didn't drop them, they dropped him. Don't try and spin this like he dropped them because he doesn't want to be influenced by Arab billionaires. They dropped him because of his 'muslim ban'.

She asserted it in a deposition which was in the book 'Lost Tycoon'. Here's an article about it. When asked about it Trump's lawyer has also been quoted as saying here:

What lies? I've provided evidence for everything I've claimed, while you've just made ridiculous claims, such as the one about the Mexican Govt. without providing a shred of evidence.

I never said he dropped them nor did I said they dropped him, because according to Forbes they were all talk, it's business as usual. Again you're lying.

You present something from a cheesy gossip novel as evidence. Where's the deposition? Why is his wife denying it so vehemently. It's amazing how Clinton's accusers persist for all these years yet Trump's only accuser vehemently denies he did anything.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

I never said he dropped them nor did I said they dropped him, because according to Forbes they were all talk, it's business as usual. Again you're lying.

You present something from a cheesy gossip novel as evidence. Where's the deposition? Why is his wife denying it so vehemently. It's amazing how Clinton's accusers persist for all these years yet Trump's only accuser vehemently denies he did anything.

Actually you did; or at least implied he did.

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's a good thing he lost those Arab business partners.

What? You're not saying I need proper proof and sources now, are you? You seemed to have no problem accusing Bill Clinton of paedophilia and you said yourself:

walshyn93 wrote: »

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.

Is rape not one of these 'problems'?

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Actually you did; or at least implied he did.

What? You're not saying I need proper proof and sources now, are you? You seemed to have no problem accusing Bill Clinton of paedophilia and you said yourself:

Is rape not one of these 'problems'?

When more than 4 women accuse the same man of rape or sexual assault I believe them. When a woman comes out and says she wasn't raped I believe her. I don't disbelieve her and believe some rag of a smear novel that's no longer in print. Is that difficult for you to reconcile?

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

When more than 4 women accuse the same man of rape or sexual assault I believe them. When a woman comes out and says she wasn't raped I believe her. I don't disbelieve her and believe some rag of a smear novel that's no longer in print. Is that difficult for you to reconcile?

Die they accuse him of paedophilia though? The only evidence you had to prove that was his 'trip' with that Epstein guy, who's a paedophile according to you. That doesn't sound like solid evidence Walshy, yet you saw no problem in accusing of a heinous crime, but when Trump's accused of something like rape by his former wife, that's not enough for you. Looks like you're being a bit hypocritical there.

Nice job in ignoring the first part of the post though Walshy, you tripped over yourself there. Unlucky.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Die they accuse him of paedophilia though? The only evidence you had to prove that was his 'trip' with that Epstein guy, who's a paedophile according to you. That doesn't sound like solid evidence Walshy, yet you saw no problem in accusing of a heinous crime, but when Trump's accused of something like rape by his former wife, that's not enough for you. Looks like you're being a bit hypocritical there.

Nice job in ignoring the first part of the post though Walshy, you tripped over yourself there.

You obviously just don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. Epstein is not a paedophile according to me. He's a convicted paedophile. Clinton is on a private jet to Orgy Island. I never called Clinton a paedophile. I only set out the facts and you yourself drew the conclusion that I was accusing him of paedophilia. It's okay, the inference is irresistible.

There's no reliable evidence he was ever accused of rape. Your shoddy out of print book is not reliable evidence. The woman herself said he didn't. If the woman herself defends him who the **** are you to dismiss her?

I didn't ignore your first comment. I didn't think it deserved a response. You're the one who brought up the debunked story about Arab billionaires dropping him and I never implied he dropped them. You've tripped up at every turn. Everything you've said is a lie.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

You obviously just don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. Epstein is not a paedophile according to me. He's a convicted paedophile. Clinton is on a private jet to Orgy Island. I never called Clinton a paedophile. I only set out the facts and you yourself drew the conclusion that I was accusing him of paedophilia. It's okay, the inference is irresistible.

There's no reliable evidence he was ever accused of rape. Your shoddy out of print book is not reliable evidence. The woman herself said he didn't. If the woman herself defends him who the **** are you to dismiss her?

I didn't ignore your first comment. I didn't think it deserved a response. You're the one who brought up the debunked story about Arab billionaires dropping him and I never implied he dropped them. You've tripped up at every turn. Everything you've said is a lie.

Ok so he's a convicted paedophile and Bill Clinton went on a trip with him. You said yourself 'you shouldn't set the bar for evidence too high. If you do you just end up ignoring problems' and sure enough you don't want to ignore this problem. I don't want to ignore the problem of rape so I think I'll follow your logic and infer that Trump's a rapist, after all, we don't need reasonable sources, given that the supposed 'trip' with Epstein to a mysterious 'Orgy Island' took place, was all you needed to infer that he's a paedophile.

I'll also gladly dismiss her, in following your logic, because it's not like I need reasonable evidence to infer that someone's a rapist/paedophile, do I?

You ignored it because you saw yourself that you tripped up. You said he 'lost' the Arab billionaires which absolutely implies that they dropped him. It's hard to make constant outrageous claims without tripping over yourself once in a while anyway.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Ok so he's a convicted paedophile and Bill Clinton went on a trip with him. You said yourself 'you shouldn't set the bar for evidence too high. If you do you just end up ignoring problems' and sure enough you don't want to ignore this problem. I don't want to ignore the problem of rape so I think I'll follow your logic and infer that Trump's a rapist, after all, we don't need reasonable sources, given that the supposed 'trip' with Epstein to a mysterious 'Orgy Island' took place, was all you needed to infer that he's a paedophile.

I'll also gladly dismiss her, in following your logic, because it's not like I need reasonable evidence to infer that someone's a rapist/paedophile, do I?

You ignored it because you saw yourself that you tripped up. You said he 'lost' the Arab billionaires which absolutely implies that they dropped him. It's hard to make constant outrageous claims without tripping over yourself once in a while anyway.

Generally speaking when the supposed victim claims not to be a victim there's no case to answer. When you're on private jets to private sex parties with convicted paedophiles it has a damaging effect on your reputation with the public. It might help you to know that the sole purpose of the island was to bring rich old men there for sex parties, hence the name Orgy Island. (http://pagesix.com/2015/01/24/sex-slave-claims-bill-clinton-visited-epsteins-orgy-island/)

The funny thing is I think you actually think you're doing well here.

You originally brought up the Arab business partners ending their relationship with Trump which is out of date information since they have done no such thing and it's business as usual. You accuse me of implying that he dropped them rather than them dropping him when in fact neither of those things happened at all and we wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't for you bringing it up as evidence of his inability to do diplomacy. It actually shows he can do business with people he vehemently disagrees with and opposes politically without having to pander to them. So you've drawn attention to more of his positive attributes for president. You're having a hard time tonight.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

Trump has demonstrated a very common sense approach to foreign policy.

Do Trump's campaign statements reflect what public statements he may make in the future with foreign policy implications as president? If so, he would be an international relations disaster; if not, then he is being disingenuous to pander to his domestic audience just to get votes. Examples:

"You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it's like living in a hellhole right now."

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

These are but two of several. Such statements triggered adverse reactions affecting international relations, and if elected, such Trump statements may appear to be verified by the American voter.

Sources:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-brussels-muslim-ban-hellhole-2016-1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b

Black Swan

Given that Iowa is a caucus and not a primary election, in the Iowa caucus there can be many votes and re-groupings until they decide upon their Iowa Republican nominee. Even if Trump is at 1st in the lead, other delegates that are not part of the leading group can recombine and pull ahead of the Trump group in numbers; e.g., Cruz and Rubio delegates combine to surpass Trump, or if Trump is behind, other delegates leave their earlier positions and move to combine with Trump giving him the lead. We shall see what happens Monday 1 February 2016 in Iowa.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Do Trump's campaign statements reflect what public statements he may make in the future with foreign policy implications as president? If so, he would be an international relations disaster; if not, then he is being disingenuous to pander to his domestic audience just to get votes. Examples:

"You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it's like living in a hellhole right now."

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

These are but two of several. Such statements triggered adverse reactions affecting international relations, and if elected, such Trump statements may appear to be verified by the American voter.

Sources:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-brussels-muslim-ban-hellhole-2016-1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b

He's right to call out European countries for the messes they've created. Brussels is a disaster and Mexico are big boys they can take it. Is he supposed to pretend its none of his business? He's already demonstrated that he can work with devout Muslims in spite of his proposed ban. The more European politicians turn against Trump the more European people will turn towards him. If he's talking in a more frank way about other countries than the leaders of those countries then it's only going to improve the relationship and trust between the American government and the people of Europe.

A lot of people are pretending that the leaders of these countries have fragile egos that Trump might offend. Well, considering how powerful Putin has become while insulting every other leader it doesn't seem like a brash attitude has become a hindrance. Maybe Trump seems impolite in public now but if you think he's a fool who speaks without thinking then more fool you. Offending people certainly worked for Medvedev, Putin's master negotiator, against Hillary and Condi Rice according to wikileaks cables. Hillary got emotional and Condi cried. Apparently Sarkozi stood up grabbed him by the lapels and shook him with anger. Maybe Trump has what it takes to get under the negotiators skin.

To believe that Donald Trump will cause a breakdown in relations simply because of his demeanour you have to believe that our leaders would put their own personal opinions ahead of the interests of their countries. Are you willing to say that? Or are you going to agree that Trump's attitude on the campaign trail isn't important to global stability.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

He's right to call out European countries for the messes they've created. Brussels is a disaster and Mexico are big boys they can take it.

What Trump lacks is diplomacy, which is absolutely critical towards fostering good international relations. He seems to have a complete and utter lack of knowledge, understanding, and appreciation for how his public statements about cities, countries, and peoples outside the USA can influence present and future relations.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

What Trump lacks is diplomacy, which is absolutely critical towards fostering good international relations. He seems to have a complete and utter lack of knowledge, understanding, and appreciation for how his public statements about cities, countries, and peoples outside the USA can influence present and future relations.

I think you underestimate both Trump's talents and the intelligence of world leaders to be able to distinguish between campaign fluff and genuine threats and contempt.

Tbh I just don't take anyone who criticises Trump in terms of intelligence or awareness seriously any more. He has outsmarted everyone, outfoxed FOX. You're just not going to get one over on him no matter how hard you try. It's just a wonder that people still haven't noticed how bright he is.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

Tbh I just don't take anyone who criticises Trump in terms of intelligence or awareness seriously any more. He has outsmarted everyone, outfoxed FOX. You're just not going to get one over on him no matter how hard you try. It's just a wonder that people still haven't noticed how bright he is.

No matter what Trump says, some people will always support him faithfully and without reservations, and Trump knows this when he states:

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

Source: http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-comment/

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

No matter what Trump says, some people will always support him faithfully and without reservations, and Trump knows this when he states:

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

Source: http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-comment/

If he actually shot someone he would lose voters but by simply joking about it he doesn't lose any. That's a good thing. The people who support him believe that actions speak louder than words and they're not turned off by things that are offensive and shocking they're not going to be turned off by the truth either. For once a president might actually get to be upfront with people about how ****ed things really are without fearing for his job. I don't what care what he says at this point I know where he stands on the important things, I know what his perspective is.

People don't hear all the atypical-of-a-bigot stuff he says like about how Black Americans are disenfranchised by the schooling system and then by the unskilled work going to immigrants.

People on the Democrat side want to ignore the fact that he's in favour of healthcare reform, he believes that everyone should have access to healthcare and he says this often and is criticised by the extreme right Cruz supporters in the party. He appeals more to people who describe themselves as moderate than those to claim to be conservative according to Quinnepiac.

He has the highest support from Latinos since Reagan.

25% of black voters would vote for Trump over Clinton. That's double the best support for a Republican in modern times.

He appeals to a broad spectrum and its time those who think he's just for the uneducated white male to actually look at the facts and then go have another look at his positions.

He doesn't care if it's taboo in the Republican party to talk socialising medicine. He knows what he believes in and says what he believes anyway.

“If somebody has no money and they’re lying in the middle of the street and they’re dying, I’m going to take care of that person,” Donald J. Trump said. “And if this means I lose an election, that’s fine, because, frankly, we have to take care of the people in our country. We can’t let them die on the sidewalks of New York or the sidewalks of Iowa or anywhere else.”

You can’t have a – a small percentage of our economy, because they’re down and out, have absolutely no protection so they end up dying from, you know, what you could have a simple procedure or even a pill. You can’t do that.

Overheal

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Well there's a problem with that: look what has happened to television in the last 10 years. Do you know what the most popular show on the History Channel is? Pawn Stars. Television is dominated by awful reality television and manufactured drama, celebrity bachelors deal or no deal here comes Kim Kardashian etc. and the 24/7 news cycles and sports. Basically, if you're watching television you're watching crap, in my humble opinion.

Further to that, the political narrative is driven by none other than television and fueled by the people who tune in to watch the train wreck. Nobody would even remember who Kanye West was, really, if he had not been a complete asshole on an award show to some girl who we've already forgotten the name of. Similarly, Trump has harnessed the same power as Kanye, Snookie, Kardashian and others by channeling the power of being a train wreck that you want to turn away from but you're just compelled to watch. /rant