2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

newacc2015 wrote: »

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.

The Pope was centrally involved in breaking the decades long US/Cuban hostile relationship.
Stalin asked 'how many divisions' does the Pope have.
Pope John Paul II is cited as being one of the key people in the fall of communism in Europe,
Hitler wanted to kidnap the Pope, but was put off by people around him who warned it was a bad idea.
Trump got into a fight with the Pope...who then said ISIS wants to attack the Vatican.

The US Fed is one of the most important jobs as you say, but the Pope is one of the most influential people in the world, hence why the Vatican is probably one of the most visited by world leaders and top ranking politicians, bar China due to the Holy See recognising Taiwan as an independent country.
Before the Iraq war Tariq Aziz who is Christian made a few visits to the Pope to try and prevent the war, the Pope was maybe the only world leader who met both sides as Bush and Blair also visited the Pope in the lead up to the invasion.

Trump knew it was not good to get into a war of words with the Pope and diffused the situation as quickly as he could while trying to stay looking strong.

Akrasia

fr336 wrote: »

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...$$$$$

Russia Annexed a European country only 2 years ago....

Colonialboy

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.

did some of them go into finance by any chance ... meaningful disciplines , shabby and corrupt reputations :rolleyes:

HSBC pays record $1.9bn fine to settle US money-laundering accusations. Assistant attorney general Lanny Breuer told a press conference in New York that Mexican drug traffickers deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars each day in HSBC accounts. At least $881m in drug trafficking money was laundered throughout the bank's accounts.

Akrasia

Anyway, Back to the election

Sanders won the Maine Caucus with a very high turnout by 30 points

That's 3 out of 4 states this weekend that went to Sanders.

The focus now is on Michigan which is a huge state for both candidates.
Polls still suggest that Clinton has a big lead in Michigan, but the same was true of the 3 states he just won this weekend. The last poll had Clinton support at 56% and Sanders at 31% amongst 'likely voters'
There are a lot of undecided voters to play for, and also it's possible that the pollsters are mis-calculating how likely certain demographics are to vote this time. There have been record turnouts for the Democrats over the weekend. A lot of people are turning out who never bothered before. High turnouts appear to favour Sanders.

There was a debate last night between Clinton and Sanders. This might be the first time that a lot of Michigan voters have had a proper look at Sanders and what he stands for.

If Sanders wins there it will be a massive boost. if Clinton wins big, then Sanders may have too much of a mountain to climb considering that she's likely to beat him in Florida due to the age profile of it's voters.

Colonialboy

Akrasia wrote: »

There have been record turnouts for the Democrats over the weekend. A lot of people are turning out who never bothered before. High turnouts appear to favour Sanders.

Seems high turnouts in the Democratic primarys are to be welcomed...
but high turnouts in the Republican primarys are called a reflection of dumb stupid rural uneducated voters and nazi sympathisers turning out.

Akrasia wrote: »

He should consider having a rally for the Republicans abroad. Maybe in a nice city like Nuremburg.

It would be like a pilgrimage for the Neo Nazi supporters who have been filmed at his rallies engaging in racist chants and violence against black people in the crowd..

Akrasia wrote: »

If trump loses the nomination he's likely to play his trump card by going independent and torpedoing any chance of a republican victory in the GE

Actually that is the plan being formulated by the GOP establishment, that if Trump wins the nomination they will run an alternative 3rd party candidate to torpedo Trumps presidential bid, they are potentially willing to sacrifice this election to the Democrats just to block Trump passage.
Seems if your in the GOP establishment the enemy (Democrat) of my enemy (Trump) is my friend.. I wonder why . probably 54trillion reasons why.

Interesting how if Trump or a supporter does or says somethign or even a whole state votes for Trump is painted in one light, but if similar things come from the other side of the floor then its painted in another light.
People fear change I guess.

Akrasia

Colonialboy wrote: »

Seems high turnouts in the Democratic primarys are to be welcomed...
but high turnouts in the Republican primarys are called a reflection of dumb stupid rural uneducated voters and nazi sympathisers turning out.

Where did anyone say this?

High turnouts are good. It's good that people are engaged.

But it's also important to acknowledge the kinds of people who are being engaged.

If Sanders was holding rallies and a significant and vocal portion of the crowd were Stalinists calling for the reformation of the USSR, it would be an unwelcome element and I would be very disappointed if Sanders didn't distance himself from them.

Actually that is the plan being formulated by the GOP establishment, that if Trump wins the nomination they will run an alternative 3rd party candidate to torpedo Trumps presidential bid, they are potentially willing to sacrifice this election to the Democrats just to block Trump passage.
Seems if your in the GOP establishment the enemy (Democrat) of my enemy (Trump) is my friend.. I wonder why . probably 54trillion reasons why.

Interesting how if Trump or a supporter does or says somethign or even a whole state votes for Trump is painted in one light, but if similar things come from the other side of the floor then its painted in another light.
People fear change I guess.

I really don't get your point here.

The GOP establishment are scrambling for ways to take back their party, if Sanders wins more states, the Democrats might find themselves in a similar kind of panic.

Colonialboy

Akrasia wrote: »

I really don't get your point here.

The GOP establishment are scrambling for ways to take back their party, if Sanders wins more states, the Democrats might find themselves in a similar kind of panic.

Akrasia wrote:

If trump loses the nomination he's likely to play his trump card by going independent and torpedoing any chance of a republican victory in the GE

The point is quite simple.
you tar Trump with a claim that he will sabotage the GOP GE run if he loses the primary. Which is actually very unlikely.

Yet you dont make any claim that Sanders would do the same thing if he lost the primary.

Given most commentators are indicating the most likely event is the GOP would sabotage their own campaign just to prevent Trump winning the GE.
So its really just spreading more falsifications about Trump, accusing him of something he hasnt done, nor stated he would do, when in FACT , the most likely event is his own GOP party would do what your talking about.
simple ..see..

Akrasia

Colonialboy wrote: »

The point is quite simple.
you tar Trump with a claim that he will sabotage the GOP GE run if he loses the primary. Which is actually very unlikely.

It's not a claim I have made, it's something Trump himself has said. He has only promised to not run as an independent if he is 'treated fairly'

Yet you dont make any claim that Sanders would do the same thing if he lost the primary.

Sanders never said he would run as an independent, Trump did.

Given most commentators are indicating the most likely event is the GOP would sabotage their own campaign just to prevent Trump winning the GE.
So its really just spreading more falsifications about Trump, accusing him of something he hasnt done, nor stated he would do, when in FACT , the most likely event is his own GOP party would do what your talking about.
simple ..see..

That's speculation by pundits, it's not anything that has been announced or even suggested by senior GOP members.

Colonialboy

Akrasia wrote: »

MA is split between the liberal, highly educated urban centres, and the republican, poorly educated rural areas.

There are less than half a million registered republicans out of the 4 million registered voters in the state, so if Trump is popular amongst about 200 thousand voters out of a population of 4 million...

It's not convincing to say that Trump appeals to highly educated people, when he really only appeals to a very specific sub set of the most conservative people in the state (registered republicans).

In the GE, Trump would be utterly annihilated in MA

Billionaire owner of the Patriots Robert Kraft, Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, all coming out in recent weeks to praise Trump and even have him over for dinner.
Probably the first time anyone has ever implied they are poorly educated culchies.

FreudianSlippers

Colonialboy wrote: »

Billionaire owner of the Patriots Robert Kraft, Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, all coming out in recent weeks to praise Trump and even have him over for dinner.
Probably the first time anyone has ever implied they are poorly educated culchies.

Of the three people you named, only Kraft could be said to be properly educated - attending Columbia on scholarship (academic) and with an MBA from Harvard. The other two barely scraped by college on football scholarships.

Akrasia

Colonialboy wrote: »

Billionaire owner of the Patriots Robert Kraft, Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, all coming out in recent weeks to praise Trump and even have him over for dinner.
Probably the first time anyone has ever implied they are poorly educated culchies.

I don't know anything about these guys or their reasons for supporting Trump, but they're just 3 voters

AnMuinteoirOg

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Of the three people you named, only Kraft could be said to be properly educated - attending Columbia on scholarship (academic) and with an MBA from Harvard. The other two barely scraped by college on football scholarships.

Brady graduated with 3.3 GPA from the University of Michigan and interned in Merrill Lynch. Thats hardly scraping through college tbf.

He also scored a 33 in the Wonderlic NFL intelligence test before his draft. Thats a good bit above average.

FreudianSlippers

AnMuinteoirOg wrote: »

Brady graduated with 3.3 GPA from the University of Michigan and interned in Merrill Lynch. Thats hardly scraping through college tbf.

Bachelor of General Studies from a meh school and an internship for a sales broker isn't exactly rocket science.

He also scored a 33 in the Wonderlic NFL intelligence test before his draft. Thats a good bit above average.

idk what that is tbh.

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

idk what that is tbh.

a type of broad intelligence test given to NFL draftees (or anyone else for that matter).

QB's, as you know being a very demanding position, get focused on.

33 is pretty good.... smart cookie territory.

Akrasia

I don't really care what level of education or what iq Trump supporters have

What matters to me is their personality type. They tend to be high on the Authoritarian scale, and this means they are attracted to his bombastic crude and dominating style.
People who are authoritarian tend to compartmentalise their beliefs and buy into an ideology or a leader so much that they're capable of ignoring all of it's flaws and glorifying it's virtues.

Authoritarians are not necessarily stupid, they could be very clever and highly educated, but they are vulnerable to getting carried away by charismatic leaders, either in business, religion, or politics.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/01/27/donald-trump-is-attracting-authoritarian-primary-voters-and-it-may-help-him-to-gain-the-nomination/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/how-your-parenting-style-predicts-whether-you-support-donald-trump/

The reason why Authoritarians can often appear to make stupid choices, is because they are prepared to believe and rigorously defend things that are demonstrably false, if it is a requirement to follow their leader.

This is why it seems so baffling that Trump supporters can think that Trump is the most straight talking and honest candidate, while every independent metric for verifying honesty puts him as the least honest and most likely to blatantly lie...

Billy86

Colonialboy wrote: »

Billionaire owner of the Patriots Robert Kraft, Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, all coming out in recent weeks to praise Trump and even have him over for dinner.
Probably the first time anyone has ever implied they are poorly educated culchies.

Actually I am pretty sure they have distanced themselves from endorsing him as a politician, insisting on referring to him as no more than "a good friend".

AnMuinteoirOg wrote: »

He also scored a 33 in the Wonderlic NFL intelligence test before his draft. Thats a good bit above average.

The Wonderlic tends to also score higher on how intelligent of a player someone is, so to use a more familiar example, if Paul Scholes or Andrea Pirlo were dumb as doorposts in everyday life, they would still score very highly in a hypothetical soccer Wonderlic test due to being very smart footballers, not people. It was used as a general test but -and I may be wrong on this- I have not heard of it being used much at all outside of the NFL in a long time.

A guy called Johnny Manziel did very, very well about two years back on his... but despite being extremely talented (one of the most exciting and successful college players ever) in the most important position in the game (probably 2-3 times more important than even out half in rugby), he has been unable to get his game with one of the worst teams in the league and is on his way to being let go before the start of next season because he is an idiot. A monumental idiot. Google him if you want a cheap laugh.

That said, I watch a lot of the NFL and have done since the season after he got the starting job, and Brady does strike me as a pretty intelligent. To be a long time successful QB in the NFL you do typically need to be a very intelligent person as well as player (long story but you essentially act as a coach to your team mates, even during the off season for practice routines etc). Just saying the Wonderlic isn't really a great barometer of a person's intelligence.

ebbsy

Speaking from the last two elections, they were dull and one sided affairs.

Trump vs Clinton would be juicy.

Rjd2

ebbsy wrote: »

Speaking from the last two elections, they were dull and one sided affairs.

Trump vs Clinton would be juicy.

While Clinton v Cruz would be pretty unexciting. I'd love a Bernie v Trump race though, I can't be the only one either can I?

And yes I know the only way Bernie gets the dem nomination is if God himself gets involved:o

eire4

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.
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.

The Sanders supporters may not all vote for Clinton if he loses the Democratic nomination but they certainly are not going to vote for a billionaire demagogue like Trump.

eire4

Hande hoche! wrote: »

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

They may stay at home, they may vote for a small party candidate like Jill Stein but they certainly won't be voting for Trump.

The Randy Riverbeast

eire4 wrote: »

The Sanders supporters may not all vote for Clinton if he loses the Democratic nomination but they certainly are not going to vote for a billionaire demagogue like Trump.

There is some crossover in Trump and Sanders supporters. There are Trump supporters who dont agree with half his nonsense but support him because they are fed up with the current 2 party system where the candidates are just pushing business interests (although with Trump they just cut out the middle man and have the business owner doing the work himself)

Quite a few Trump supporters would switch to Bernie so I would imagine some Bernie supporters would go for Trump as a way of sticking 2 fingers up to the current systems.

eire4

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

There is some crossover in Trump and Sanders supporters. There are Trump supporters who dont agree with half his nonsense but support him because they are fed up with the current 2 party system where the candidates are just pushing business interests (although with Trump they just cut out the middle man and have the business owner doing the work himself)

Quite a few Trump supporters would switch to Bernie so I would imagine some Bernie supporters would go for Trump as a way of sticking 2 fingers up to the current systems.

If Sanders supporters want to stick 2 fingers up to the establishment they are not going to vote for a billionaire demagogue to do it they will either stay at home or vote for some one like the Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic and up the standard of posting please.

KingBrian2

Trump supporters are more extreme than their leader Trump. They live hard lives and love fighting against the est. Stick it to the man President Obama types. At this moment it is full steam ahead.

All over the news his name is coming up on all the stations. Internet commentators are spilling their long standing support for him. Truly spectacular rise. He is feeding off all the attention the media have provided him with.

The movement has grown and grown and just like FF & SF using the water protests to get elected Trump is using the Tea Party to become this uber popular celebrity president in waiting.

Black Swan

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Bernie Sanders has repeatedly challenged the few obscenely rich multi-millionaires and billionaires in America since the start of his campaign, and if there is anything consistent in his political platform it is that he is against the extraordinary concentration of wealth by the top tiny percent. Methinks it's safe to assume that his followers share Sanders' position, and Trump is one of those billionaires that Sanders clearly opposes. Furthermore, Trump exemplifies one of those poor little rich kids born into an extraordinary wealthy family with the multi-millions and rich connections not shared by the population of Americans. Given Donald Trump's multi-million dollar inheritance, he was richer at the moment of his birth than the vast majority of 300 million Americans, so it's very doubtful that the Sanders voters will identify with or vote for the obscenely rich baby-to-adult Donald Trump.

LuckyLloyd

http://uk.businessinsider.com/gop-establishment-created-trump-2016-3?r=US&IR=T

Quote:
But what does it say about the Republican Party that its voters spent even a week or two seriously contemplating giving the presidency to Herman Cain? Republican insiders should have realized the appeal of scam campaigns was a symptom of a problem with the way Republican voters evaluate candidates — and that eventually, someone smarter than Herman Cain would come along and figure out how to run the scam long enough to win the nomination.

It's not normal for a political party to rent frontrunner status to cranks and charlatans for weeks at a time. Disastrous candidates are supposed to be blocked by validating institutions. Policy experts explain that their proposals do not add up. The media covers embarrassing incidents from their past and present. Party leaders warn that they will be embarrassing or incompetent or unelectable.

The problem is that Republicans have purposefully torn down the validating institutions. They have convinced voters that the media cannot be trusted; they have gotten them used to ignoring inconvenient facts about policy; and they have abolished standards of discourse by allowing all complaints about offensiveness to be lumped into a box called "political correctness" and ignored.

Republicans waged war on these institutions for a reason. Facts about policy can be inconvenient — a reality-based approach would find, for example, that tax cuts increase the deficit and carbon emissions cause climate change. Acknowledging the validity of complaints about racism could require some awkward conversations with racist and quasi-racist voters in the Republican coalition.

What really surprises me is that smart people with genuine political beliefs often feel compelled to defend all this or studiously ignore it just because they are right leaning in their views.

Augme

Colonialboy wrote: »

Billionaire owner of the Patriots Robert Kraft, Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, all coming out in recent weeks to praise Trump and even have him over for dinner.
Probably the first time anyone has ever implied they are poorly educated culchies.

Slightly different though and I think this is an area where people seem to miss.

Trump the presidential candidate and Trump the person are probably two massively different people. The same with 99% of politicians tbh. I very rarely believe/pay any heed to what comes out of a politicians mouth when he's trying to court votes.

Tom Brady has been friends with Trump for 15 years or so. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling Brady a supporter of Trump the politician. For example if Trump wasn't running in this election and instead Ted Cruz was spewing someone of the stuff that Trump has been saying I'd be amazed if Brady, Kraft and Billicheck would be voting for him or even have anything positive to say about him.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JPNelsforearm

Augme wrote: »

Slightly different though and I think this is an area where people seem to miss.

Trump the presidential candidate and Trump the person are probably two massively different people. The same with 99% of politicians tbh. I very rarely believe/pay any heed to what comes out of a politicians mouth when he's trying to court votes.

Tom Brady has been friends with Trump for 15 years or so. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling Brady a supporter of Trump the politician. For example if Trump wasn't running in this election and instead Ted Cruz was spewing someone of the stuff that Trump has been saying I'd be amazed if Brady, Kraft and Billicheck would be voting for him or even have anything positive to say about him.

Ted Cruz has said genuinely insane things, Trump has not, Trump offends sensibilities, that is the extent of his "spewing". Ted Cruz is closer to being committed than he is a viable candidate for President.

JPNelsforearm

Remember though, Trump is literally Hitler, Hillary's actual warmongering is just a side note, Trump also hurts feelings, which is another strike against him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PJr2R28pas

Meanwhile...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y