2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

LuckyLloyd

Yeah, from reading around there is a general feeling Trump held his own last night and he gave an ebullient post debate interview. Feels like something Rubio and Cruz should have been doing from late last year.

There are only two more Republican Primary debates scheduled...

JPNelsforearm

But Hillary Clinton has so much foreign policy experience!(no matter its all been a massive and terrible failure)
"better off if we took a day off and the politicians went to the beach, then intervening overseas"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwr6aohP5Lg

matthew8

Very hard to see Clinton losing the democratic nomination at this stage. She's going to trounce Sanders in all of the upcoming Southern states and it's just tough to see where Sanders gets the required delegates from. The March 15 states are also very favourable for Clinton. It feels like a narrative will emerge after Super Tuesday that Hillary is inevitable again.

Trump looks an absolute certainty to have the most delegates of the republicans, the only question is whether he gets a majority. The best hope for the republicans is that Rubio and Cruz can get enough delegates to prevent a majority. Kasich could try and hang in there and win Ohio, which is winner takes all and that could give him influence at the convention. I don't think Kasich dropping out will necessarily help Rubio, as we saw with Bush dropping out some of the voters will go to Trump too.

Inquitus

Chris Christie just endorsed Trump lol

ancapailldorcha

Inquitus wrote: »

Chris Christie just endorsed Trump lol

This isn't the place for "lol" comments. Please read the charter before posting again.

Akrasia

Colonialboy wrote: »

I say a time span of 1987 to 1989 is two years, you say its the one and the same year, Im not going to get into that one any further.

I was born in the 20th century, it's now the 21st century and spans two millenia. Does that mean I'm 2000 years old?

Akrasia

matthew8 wrote: »

Very hard to see Clinton losing the democratic nomination at this stage. She's going to trounce Sanders in all of the upcoming Southern states and it's just tough to see where Sanders gets the required delegates from. The March 15 states are also very favourable for Clinton. It feels like a narrative will emerge after Super Tuesday that Hillary is inevitable again.

Trump looks an absolute certainty to have the most delegates of the republicans, the only question is whether he gets a majority. The best hope for the republicans is that Rubio and Cruz can get enough delegates to prevent a majority. Kasich could try and hang in there and win Ohio, which is winner takes all and that could give him influence at the convention. I don't think Kasich dropping out will necessarily help Rubio, as we saw with Bush dropping out some of the voters will go to Trump too.

Sanders Could win 5 of the 11 super Tuesday states to keep his campaign alive. The more people hear about sanders the more support he gains. Staying in contention early could see him overtake hillary towards the end of the campaign

LuckyLloyd

Christie must hate Rubio. Blows him away in his last debate appearance then allows his endorsement to be announced the morning after Rubio landed a few blows in a debate (finally).

Trump's control of the news cycle is masterful. At some point it is necessary to recognise this as a magnificently orchestrated and ground breaking political campaign - whether you loathe what it stands for or not.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Christie must hate Rubio. Blows him away in his last debate appearance then allows his endorsement to be announced the morning after Rubio landed a few blows in a debate (finally).

Trump's control of the news cycle is masterful. At some point it is necessary to recognise this as a masterful and ground breaking political campaign - whether you loathe what it stands for or not.

Absolutely.

As I've mentioned, there's a huge non-voting contingent in America, about over 40% of the electorate. All Trump needs to do is get about a fifth of those to get out and vote and he wins the presidency. Judging from the turnout in Nevada it just might be possible.

jobbridge4life

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Christie must hate Rubio. Blows him away in his last debate appearance then allows his endorsement to be announced the morning after Rubio landed a few blows in a debate (finally).

Trump's control of the news cycle is masterful. At some point it is necessary to recognise this as a magnificently orchestrated and ground breaking political campaign - whether you loathe what it stands for or not.

I both agree and disagree (i'm real simple straightforward like that)

Agree: His mastery of the media has been exceptional, today's announcement is a particular stroke of genius. Utterly obliterating the nascent threads of what looked to be the first genuinely damaging coverage to date.

Disagree: Cause we all know how to stir sh!t. We all know how to get people riled up, and that is really all he is doing playing to the lowest most fear based emotions in people. Ignoring fact etc.

Inquitus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't the place for "lol" comments. Please read the charter before posting again.

So if the lol wasn't on the end it would have been fine......multiple sources at the time I posted it and some of then even said lol....

Anyways the Trump campaign is genius, no wonder he loves the purely educated, they will win him the presidency, two weeks of watching this crazy process, while down here in Carolina for work, has been highly entertaining. The wall to wall coverage and the partisan nature of the US news channels makes for quite a show.

20Cent

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Christie must hate Rubio. Blows him away in his last debate appearance then allows his endorsement to be announced the morning after Rubio landed a few blows in a debate (finally).

Trump's control of the news cycle is masterful. At some point it is necessary to recognise this as a magnificently orchestrated and ground breaking political campaign - whether you loathe what it stands for or not.

More depressing than masterfull. Culture has been dumbed down to such a degree trump is a contender for the most powerful job in the world.

Inquitus

20Cent wrote: »

More depressing than masterfull. Culture has been dumbed down to such a degree trump is a contender for the most powerful job in the world.

If you create a huge wealth and educational divide, sooner or later in a democracy the lunatics are going to take over the asylum.

ancapailldorcha

Inquitus wrote: »

So if the lol wasn't on the end it would have been fine......multiple sources at the time I posted it and some of then even said lol.....

If you have a problem with a mod warning, please use the PM function.

511

20Cent wrote: »

More depressing than masterfull. Culture has been dumbed down to such a degree trump is a contender for the most powerful job in the world.

Yeah, blame culture. Let's just find a simplistic scapegoat argument and blame it on that without any logical reasoning behind it. It couldn't possibly be the fact that he pisses all over the same political correctness that frustrates the population. I mean, look at the outrage after he said "ban Muslims from entering America until we sort things out". The left immediately interprets that as "expel all Muslims from America".

When Trump accused the Mexican government of deliberately "pushing criminal, rapists drug-runners across the border", the left interprets that as "all Mexicans are rapists".

Trump is a victim of a lot of slander and propaganda during his campaign. The man isn't anywhere near as people make him out to be. Ted Cruz should be getting all the negative press on the Republican because his views belong in 19th century America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Domestic_affairs

Americans love their First Amendment and PC impedes on free speech, so that's why Trump as a lot of appeal to Americans.

Hande hoche!

Seems like the endorsements have started coming in, this time the Governor of Maine backing Trump. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/270986-maine-governor-endorses-trump

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Absolutely.

As I've mentioned, there's a huge non-voting contingent in America, about over 40% of the electorate. All Trump needs to do is get about a fifth of those to get out and vote and he wins the presidency. Judging from the turnout in Nevada it just might be possible.

Not if half of the non voters turn up just to make sure trump doesn't get elected

Manach

Looking at some of the US conservative sites, there is a good measure of surprise at the Christie move. Speculation varies from a grudge against Rubio to a marker at the VP spot. Either way, a moderate GOP voice like Christie will add a measure of inevitability to Mr. Trumps campaign.

Manach

511 wrote: »

. Ted Cruz should be getting all the negative press on the Republican because his views belong in 19th century America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Domestic_affairs

Which is why he appeals to the base of conservative votes (5/7 I'd agree with myself) and remains a strong contender as he is unlikely to be swayed by the every shifting sands of sentiment that make up Democratic tenets. Given that the 19th Century was when the US began its emergence as a global power with an assertive and confident Manifest Destiny ethos (akin to today's China) linking that era to Cruz is a compliment.

Black Swan

Once again I was very disappointed watching the GOP presidential debates, which were dominated by Trump, Rubio, and Cruz, given that there was very little content offered to address the serious domestic and international issues that face Americans today; rather there was a lot of mudslinging personal attacks. How low can they go?

On another issue, I wondered why New Jersey Governor Chris Christie all of a sudden endorsed Trump for president? Was Christie representing his own best self-interests? What's in it for Christie? VP running mate? 2017 cabinet post if Trump wins? For some reason I am very skeptical that Christie would do so without some chance of self-gain, but then again, methinks that most high level politicians are motivated primarily by self-interests rather than citizen interests, regardless if they be Democrats or Republicans.

Manach

Black Swan wrote: »

methinks that most high level politicians are motivated primarily by self-interests rather than citizen interests, regardless if they be Democrats or Republicans.

Which basically is the central premise of books like "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics".

20Cent

511 wrote: »

Yeah, blame culture. Let's just find a simplistic scapegoat argument and blame it on that without any logical reasoning behind it. It couldn't possibly be the fact that he pisses all over the same political correctness that frustrates the population. I mean, look at the outrage after he said "ban Muslims from entering America until we sort things out". The left immediately interprets that as "expel all Muslims from America".

When Trump accused the Mexican government of deliberately "pushing criminal, rapists drug-runners across the border", the left interprets that as "all Mexicans are rapists".

Trump is a victim of a lot of slander and propaganda during his campaign. The man isn't anywhere near as people make him out to be. Ted Cruz should be getting all the negative press on the Republican because his views belong in 19th century America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Domestic_affairs

Americans love their First Amendment and PC impedes on free speech, so that's why Trump as a lot of appeal to Americans.

Logical reasoning! Wanting to ban anyone of a stated religion from the land of the free is logical? It's not practical on any level, it also goes against all that America is supposed to stand for. Building a wall between the US and Mexico, take a few moments to even think about that, it's not even physically possible for a start. A trade war with Mexico and China just what the world needs. Even the British had to have a debate to consider letting him enter their country. Nothing he says or does stands up to logical reasoning.

Dumbing down culture is exactly how someone like trump can get so far.

Fr Tod Umptious

511 wrote: »

Yeah, blame culture. Let's just find a simplistic scapegoat argument and blame it on that without any logical reasoning behind it. It couldn't possibly be the fact that he pisses all over the same political correctness that frustrates the population. I mean, look at the outrage after he said "ban Muslims from entering America until we sort things out". The left immediately interprets that as "expel all Muslims from America".

When Trump accused the Mexican government of deliberately "pushing criminal, rapists drug-runners across the border", the left interprets that as "all Mexicans are rapists".

Trump is a victim of a lot of slander and propaganda during his campaign. The man isn't anywhere near as people make him out to be. Ted Cruz should be getting all the negative press on the Republican because his views belong in 19th century America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Domestic_affairs

Americans love their First Amendment and PC impedes on free speech, so that's why Trump as a lot of appeal to Americans.

Here in Ireland you often hear people saying that if Michael O Leary (Ryanair CEO) was running the country it would be a great place.

He is brash, insulting, non PC, etc, but ultimately very successful.

Trump is the US version of that and unlike Ireland people are actually getting the chance to vote for him

Fr Tod Umptious

Manach wrote: »

Which is why he appeals to the base of conservative votes (5/7 I'd agree with myself) and remains a strong contender as he is unlikely to be swayed by the every shifting sands of sentiment that make up Democratic tenets. Given that the 19th Century was when the US began its emergence as a global power with an assertive and confident Manifest Destiny ethos (akin to today's China) linking that era to Cruz is a compliment.

Irish folks should like his thoughts on immigration.
An increase in H1Bs from 65k to 325k gives a lot more skilled Irish people the chance to work in the US.

Blatter

I was just looking at the exchange odds on betfair for the next president. Trump is a little better 3/1 which equates to ~25% chance. Clinton has ~55% chance. Do people on here feel that's a fairly accurate representation?

Fr Tod Umptious

Blatter wrote: »

I was just looking at the exchange odds on betfair for the next president. Trump is a little better 3/1 which equates to ~25% chance. Clinton has ~55% chance. Do people on here feel that's a fairly accurate representation?

I think they reflect the fact that the Democrat race is over and Hillary is the nominee.
The GOP race still has a bit of life in it.

Blatter

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think they reflect the fact that the Democrat race is over and Hillary is the nominee.
The GOP race still has a bit of life in it.

Trump has 75% and Clinton 90% chance to be respective nominees on betfair.

Black Swan

During the last GOP so-called debate, Rubio referred to Trump using undocumented workers to build Trump Tower; i.e., 150 undocumented workers from Poland nicknamed "Polish Brigade." When referring to this, Rubio was claiming that Trump was a hypocrite using such undocumented workers in the past to further his self-interests financially, while advocating the Trump Wall and deporting 11 million illegals today. Is there any merit to the claim that Trump used undocumented workers (i.e., illegals) to build his self-named building?

brooke 2

Manach wrote: »

Looking at some of the US conservative sites, there is a good measure of surprise at the Christie move. Speculation varies from a grudge against Rubio to a marker at the VP spot. Either way, a moderate GOP voice like Christie will add a measure of inevitability to Mr. Trumps campaign.

A marker at the VP spot, I would say.

Hande hoche!

Christie could be aiming for the AG spot?

Black Swan wrote: »

During the last GOP so-called debate, Rubio referred to Trump using undocumented workers to build Trump Tower; i.e., 150 undocumented workers from Poland nicknamed "Polish Brigade." When referring to this, Rubio was claiming that Trump was a hypocrite using such undocumented workers in the past to further his self-interests financially, while advocating the Trump Wall and deporting 11 million illegals today. Is there any merit to the claim that Trump used undocumented workers (i.e., illegals) to build his self-named building?

Seemingly Trump hired a contractor, who in turn hired the Poles.