2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

PopePalpatine

73 minutes of Stefan Molyneux? Ain't nobody got time for "argument by YouTube video". :pac:

Red King

Do people really think Trump means half the stuff he says?

He is playing everyone for fools and people are falling for it.

Black Swan

Red King wrote: »

Do people really think Trump means half the stuff he says?

He is playing everyone for fools and people are falling for it.

Ironically, what he is doing to manipulate the media and its viewers is specifically addressed in his 1987 book The Art of the Deal. Say "outrageous" and controversial things and the press will flock to report it, and its viewers will view and read it. In doing this, he has the best coverage, which is daily across the pond, and he spends the least for it compared to his GOP opponents. Voters don't have the slightest idea what they are getting for a presidential candidate, except for his sensationalistic pseudo-reality show.

Fr Tod Umptious

Black Swan wrote: »

Ironically, what he is doing to manipulate the media and its viewers is specifically addressed in his 1987 book The Art of the Deal. Say "outrageous" and controversial things and the press will flock to report it, and its viewers will view and read it. In doing this, he has the best coverage, which is daily across the pond, and he spends the least for it compared to his GOP opponents. Voters don't have the slightest idea what they are getting for a presidential candidate, except for his sensationalistic pseudo-reality show.

From the brilliant movie Private Parts.

Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Pig Vomit: How can that be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given? "I want to see what he'll say next."
Pig Vomit: Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.
Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?
Researcher: Most common answer? "I want to see what he'll say next.

RobertKK

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But for some reason this seems to be lost on a hell of a lotof people this side of the world, and the GOP as well, but as I said before, they may be faking it.

What I find lacking intelligence are the people who think they are being intelligent by looking down their noses at Trump which seems rife in the media on this side of the Atlantic.
While the same people seem blind to the multiple flaws in the Clinton bid for the White House.
None of them are perfect, but Trump has said stuff which is far less war mongering than what Clinton did say and want when she was secretary of state.
I think Clinton is a bigger danger to the world.

I was watching CNN very early this morning and they were talking about a Clinton V Trump presidential election, they seem to think that some of the Bernie Sanders supporters will switch to Trump given he is not part of the establishment, and they don't particularly like Clinton.

Hande hoche!

Yeah that's a fair point. Also if they feel hard done by a Clinton nomination, they may stay home come November.

Black Swan

RobertKK wrote: »

None of them are perfect, but Trump has said stuff...

Washington Post: "Torture works," according to Trump, and "much worse."

Business Insider: "I don’t see how there is any room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the statement I made on June 16th during my Presidential announcement speech," Trump wrote, adding, "What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."

The Economist: Trump stated “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

ancapailldorcha

RobertKK wrote: »

What I find lacking intelligence are the people who think they are being intelligent by looking down their noses at Trump which seems rife in the media on this side of the Atlantic.

Are you saying that these are falsified? That Trump doesn't wan to ban all Muslim immigration, force Mexico into paying for the construction of a wall at their border with the US or advocating violence at one of his rallies? Any of these betray a complete lack of understanding how the world or the US work and this is the reason many find him off-putting or worse.

RobertKK wrote: »

While the same people seem blind to the multiple flaws in the Clinton bid for the White House.

Oh, there are plenty there which have been highlighted on this thread. At this stage, however, she is the superior choice when compared with the prospect of Trump in the White house.

Inquitus

Eugh! Looks like it's Goodnight Rubio and we are into Trump v Cruz, Cruz is the only person who scares me more than a Trump presidency would, he's a right wing evangelical whack job of the worst order......

RobertKK

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you saying that these are falsified? That Trump doesn't wan to ban all Muslim immigration, force Mexico into paying for the construction of a wall at their border with the US or advocating violence at one of his rallies? Any of these betray a complete lack of understanding how the world or the US work and this is the reason many find him off-putting or worse.



Oh, there are plenty there which have been highlighted on this thread. At this stage, however, she is the superior choice when compared with the prospect of Trump in the White house.

No and I previously said some of his policies are extreme, but the policies he has espoused are connecting, and a recent poll showed Trump has made the right call by playing on fear, with 52% of Americans fearing a terrorist attack to happen within the US within 12 months.
We all know it is Muslim extremism that will try to do this.
Now look at what anyone wants in their own country, they want to feel secure and safe, they can look at Europe and see how the migrant crisis has been exploited by terrorists.
The wall is less extreme but people associated with terrorism have been arrested in central America who were going to Mexico to cross the border into the US. One can find multiple cases of people arrested who are from the middle east who were using the Mexico/US border to cross into the US, some were on a terrorist list.
Trump is saying what he needs to get the nomination, he knows as a non politician he has to appear tough and strong. The Ben Carson approach would not work.

Trump is against fighting Assad which Clinton wanted, and has blamed Saudi Arabia for funding terrorism in the region.

Hilary Clinton was a cheerleader for the Arab spring. When Gaddafi was in power and when the US and it's allies were warning Gaddafi about taking back Benghazi, there were videos coming out of Benghazi of Al Qaeda beheading a black mercenary who was working for Gaddafi.
These are the people that Obama/Clinton, Cameron, Sarkozy and others were arguing we must protect.
Clinton was one of the main cheerleaders for his removal, what we have now is a country in turmoil with terrorist bases for Al Qaeda and ISIS, something we wouldn't have if people like Clinton had supported the devil we knew.
Clinton who wanted to bomb Assad, but strangely not Bahrain because Bahrain is an ally and democracy is only needed in nations that aren't allies, I can't stand that woman and her double standards as secretary of state, she is one of the people responsible for the migrant crisis and the increased terrorism threat we all face.
Clinton along with Obama totally dismissed the Russian threat until it was too late. They laughed at Romney.
They supported the Muslim brotherhood...but thankfully the military took back control which Clinton was unhappy about.
John Kerry has been a far more competent person as secretary of state.

I don't know how someone with a record of terrible failure on the international stage should be getting a promotion, she was also a very loud cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq.
Most of her calls when it comes to the middle east have been the wrong ones and has led to countless deaths and has made terrorism a far worse problem.
Clinton has been an extremist as secretary of state, with a trail of destruction to match.
Trump has made extreme comments but has been far less war mongering than Clinton and her record.

Manach

I would mostly agree with RobertKk, but in defence of Clinton's record in State she did pursue a policy of reproach-meant in terms of the US and its position within the international legal community. That is to her credit.
However there is the question on drone strikes, which is as an egregious violation of human rights law which was a tool of US statecraft during her tenure.

20Cent

RobertKK wrote: »

No and I previously said some of his policies are extreme, but the policies he has espoused are connecting, and a recent poll showed Trump has made the right call by playing on fear, with 52% of Americans fearing a terrorist attack to happen within the US within 12 months.
We all know it is Muslim extremism that will try to do this.
Now look at what anyone wants in their own country, they want to feel secure and safe, they can look at Europe and see how the migrant crisis has been exploited by terrorists.
The wall is less extreme but people associated with terrorism have been arrested in central America who were going to Mexico to cross the border into the US. One can find multiple cases of people arrested who are from the middle east who were using the Mexico/US border to cross into the US, some were on a terrorist list.
Trump is saying what he needs to get the nomination, he knows as a non politician he has to appear tough and strong. The Ben Carson approach would not work.

Trump is against fighting Assad which Clinton wanted, and has blamed Saudi Arabia for funding terrorism in the region.

Hilary Clinton was a cheerleader for the Arab spring. When Gaddafi was in power and when the US and it's allies were warning Gaddafi about taking back Benghazi, there were videos coming out of Benghazi of Al Qaeda beheading a black mercenary who was working for Gaddafi.
These are the people that Obama/Clinton, Cameron, Sarkozy and others were arguing we must protect.
Clinton was one of the main cheerleaders for his removal, what we have now is a country in turmoil with terrorist bases for Al Qaeda and ISIS, something we wouldn't have if people like Clinton had supported the devil we knew.
Clinton who wanted to bomb Assad, but strangely not Bahrain because Bahrain is an ally and democracy is only needed in nations that aren't allies, I can't stand that woman and her double standards as secretary of state, she is one of the people responsible for the migrant crisis and the increased terrorism threat we all face.
Clinton along with Obama totally dismissed the Russian threat until it was too late. They laughed at Romney.
They supported the Muslim brotherhood...but thankfully the military took back control which Clinton was unhappy about.
John Kerry has been a far more competent person as secretary of state.

I don't know how someone with a record of terrible failure on the international stage should be getting a promotion, she was also a very loud cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq.
Most of her calls when it comes to the middle east have been the wrong ones and has led to countless deaths and has made terrorism a far worse problem.
Clinton has been an extremist as secretary of state, with a trail of destruction to match.
Trump has made extreme comments but has been far less war mongering than Clinton and her record.

Can you tell us or link to trumps policies to combat terrorism?
Banning Muslims from the US can be easily bypassed by any terrorist by simply lying.

Colonialboy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you saying that these are falsified? That Trump doesn't wan to ban all Muslim immigration, force Mexico into paying for the construction of a wall at their border with the US or advocating violence at one of his rallies? Any of these betray a complete lack of understanding how the world or the US work and this is the reason many find him off-putting or worse.

Oh, there are plenty there which have been highlighted on this thread. At this stage, however, she is the superior choice when compared with the prospect of Trump in the White house.

Everyone seems to drop the 'Temporary' word from that Trump quote.
He said 'temporary'
besides the head of the FBI has stated the US has no clue or control over who is coming in over its Mexican border.
I think if people are goign to quote someone they should at elast quote teh full thing.

Also 'the wall' is to some degree a figure of speech which Trump has expanded upon a number of times. It could be made up of part physical wall, part advanced technology surveilance, part much increased manpower among other measures.

Colonialboy

Black Swan wrote: »

Ironically, what he is doing to manipulate the media and its viewers is specifically addressed in his 1987 book The Art of the Deal. Say "outrageous" and controversial things and the press will flock to report it, and its viewers will view and read it. In doing this, he has the best coverage, which is daily across the pond, and he spends the least for it compared to his GOP opponents. Voters don't have the slightest idea what they are getting for a presidential candidate, except for his sensationalistic pseudo-reality show.

that works both ways. by the same logic one could claim
Trumps detractors don't have the slightest idea what they are getting for a presidential candidate, except for his sensationalistic pseudo-reality show

Media manipulation.... isnt that actually the rasino d'etre for the media , manipulation, manipulation of the viewer.
I dont think there will be much sympathy for Rubert Murdoch or Ted Turner being manipulated .
The media are loving it, ad spots for the debates have never cost so much, viewership has neve rbeen so high, they couldnt care less whos running as long as the ratings are popping... 'media maniuplation' :rolleyes:

K-9

I Wonder what dirt the Democrats will dig up on Trump.

Manic Moran

K-9 wrote: »

I Wonder what dirt the Democrats will dig up on Trump.

Would it matter? The man's already polarising enough, and despite that, he's still doing well. Who, at this point, is considering voting for Trump despite all that has happened, who would be swayed by what the Democrats are likely to find?

One nice thing about this all is that the rulebook has finally been thrown to one side, at least on the Republican side of the house.

Black Swan

K-9 wrote: »

I Wonder what dirt the Democrats will dig up on Trump.

It will not make any difference to those Trump supporters that "believe" in him in accordance with Robert Bellah's characterisation of "Civil Religion" prophets and leaders. No matter if something surfaces that has merit towards disqualifying Trump as 2016 president, his believers will defend him, or attempt to completely shift the argument to one of his opponents, while at the same time exercising historical revisionism to reinterpret the facts so that they are the opposite and positive for Trump, or so nebulous that the average voter does not understand or care. Trump himself has joked about his believers, and they unwittingly fail to see how he makes a fool of them through the guise of humour.

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

Hande hoche!

Seems like Rubio won Puerto Rico. Unlikely to do the same in Florida.

BorneTobyWilde

What connection does he have to Puerto Rico, why did he win so big there.

Hande hoche!

He spent a bit of time campaigning there. Also being able to speak Spanish probably helped.

fr336

K-9 wrote: »

I Wonder what dirt the Democrats will dig up on Trump.

Or what he could dig up on the Clintons....

fr336

Isn't Clinton the one who wanted a no fly zone over Syria? So if elected she could take the world to world war with Russia. Yet if Trump became Prez he says he wants to work with Putin. There are other things where Clinton sounds either business as usual (war, inequality, blah blah blah) or even worse while Trump sounds restrained. Yet Trump is the devil incarnate. Interesting, very interesting.

20Cent

fr336 wrote: »

Isn't Clinton the one who wanted a no fly zone over Syria? So if elected she could take the world to world war with Russia. Yet if Trump became Prez he says he wants to work with Putin. There are other things where Clinton sounds either business as usual (war, inequality, blah blah blah) or even worse while Trump sounds restrained. Yet Trump is the devil incarnate. Interesting, very interesting.

Asked already what trumps plan was anyone know besides banning Muslims from the US?

He did advocate killing women and children a war crime which the military would hopefully refuse to do. Think that does make him a bad idea for president.

The Randy Riverbeast

fr336 wrote: »

Isn't Clinton the one who wanted a no fly zone over Syria? So if elected she could take the world to world war with Russia. Yet if Trump became Prez he says he wants to work with Putin. There are other things where Clinton sounds either business as usual (war, inequality, blah blah blah) or even worse while Trump sounds restrained. Yet Trump is the devil incarnate. Interesting, very interesting.

You make it sound like Clinton is a popular person and everyone is just being mean to poor Trump.

I have yet to see a person who actually expressed some fondness for Clinton.

fr336

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

You make it sound like Clinton is a popular person and everyone is just being mean to poor Trump.

I have yet to see a person who actually expressed some fondness for Clinton.

Put it this way guys, I'd rather see the back of the two of them. And the Republicans in general. Is this really the choice America (and in reality, the world...though we don't get to vote obviously) has? Trump or Clinton...each as bad as the other.

K-9

fr336 wrote: »

Isn't Clinton the one who wanted a no fly zone over Syria? So if elected she could take the world to world war with Russia. Yet if Trump became Prez he says he wants to work with Putin. There are other things where Clinton sounds either business as usual (war, inequality, blah blah blah) or even worse while Trump sounds restrained. Yet Trump is the devil incarnate. Interesting, very interesting.

Which begs the question;
How do you work with Putin?

fr336

K-9 wrote: »

Which begs the question;
How do you work with Putin?

By throwing him a bone every so often and playing hardball when needs be. Putin has been a feature since what, 1999? But the US and the west in general seem determined to go after him no matter what else is going on. I ask myself why that could be? What do ISIS have to do to get as much attention as Russia? The priority seems to be Russia over ISIS - why? What threat are Russia to the west and in particular the US? The world isn't perfect, in an ideal world you wouldn't have Putin running his country down and expanding where he shouldn't, but he's never going to try a Hitler so what's the point? Work with Russia to obliterate ISIS no matter what the Russian's real intentions are then think about them way down the line. But no, all I hear is Russia this Russia that. ISIS when it suits. Why are the likes of Clinton more concerned with Putin? People like her stir up more chance of war than Putin is doing. ISIS killed over 100 people in Paris with ease, it wasn't their first major "success" either, they're far more dangerous than Al Qaeda ever were. I just don't get the Russia thing when that **** is going on! Well actually I probably do...$$$$$

Black Swan

fr336 wrote: »

Is this really the choice America (and in reality, the world...though we don't get to vote obviously) has?

Was visiting my alma mater with a friend seeking a fall scholarship a few days ago at USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, and during a discussion with one of the profs this topic occurred. The brightest citizens in the US are very reluctant to enter into politics, preferring occupations that contributed to the advancement of a career in a meaningful discipline (e.g., science, medicine, engineering, computers, etc.), than politics that has a shabby and corrupt reputation. Looking at the Democrat and Republican candidates for 2016, it appears that shabby and corrupt rules.

fr336

Black Swan wrote: »

Was visiting my alma mater with a friend seeking a fall scholarship a few days ago at USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, and during a discussion with one of the profs this topic occurred. The brightest citizens in the US are very reluctant to enter into politics, preferring occupations that contributed to the advancement of a career in a meaningful discipline (e.g., science, medicine, engineering, computers, etc.), than politics that has a shabby and corrupt reputation. Looking at the Democrat and Republican candidates for 2016, it appears that shabby and corrupt rules.

Totally agree with them - good to make some genuine advances in their careers rather than the bull**** of politics where as little progress as possible is ever made. I think things far more resemble House of Cards than we could ever imagine.

newacc2015

Black Swan wrote: »

Was visiting my alma mater with a friend seeking a fall scholarship a few days ago at USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, and during a discussion with one of the profs this topic occurred. The brightest citizens in the US are very reluctant to enter into politics, preferring occupations that contributed to the advancement of a career in a meaningful discipline (e.g., science, medicine, engineering, computers, etc.), than politics that has a shabby and corrupt reputation. Looking at the Democrat and Republican candidates for 2016, it appears that shabby and corrupt rules.

It makes far more sense. IMO the most powerful job in the world is not the US president, but the chair of the US Federal Reserve. Forbes actually list it as one of the most important jobs(the pope got it last year, so I wouldnt put much trust in it). You basically control the US economy directly and most of the world economy indirectly. You can do a rather poor job at it and still not be highly criticised. If you mess up once as the US president, your reputation for life is destroyed.