2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

You're the one who's using spin here. I don't even know if you could call it spin, it's totally false actually. He said he would pay one person's legal bills, not everyone's. It happened to be a 78 year old man who punched a young lad for obnoxiously sticking a middle finger in his face and Trump sympathised with him. As do I. Hardly a carte blanche to all his supporters. If anything it just shows that Trump is generous to those who are loyal to him, which is something to be admired in a politician, not condemned.

Why do you lie about stuff like this? What do you actually get out of it?

www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/51057/0/cp_2/

Listen to the first few minutes of that podcast. As I said before it is safer to assum Trump is telling lies until we get independent proof what he says is true.

K-9

Black Swan wrote: »

It is highly recommended that folks who believe that there is a "media bias against Trump" read Trump's 1987 book The Art of the Deal. If I recall the pages correctly (on about pages 56 or 57) Trump writes about how to manipulate the press by saying "outrageous" and sensationalist things, whereupon the press (media) flock to report his latest "outrageous" statements, providing him free media coverage, as well as keeping Trump before the national audience more than his other Republican or Democratic competitors. Trump has said "outrageous" things about Mexicans, Muslims, the Pope (pawn), "torture works," etc., etc., and the du jour "outrageous" statements about punching and roughing up protesters. Trump is brilliant when it comes to manipulating the media (press), and is following the advice he gives in his 1987 book, and is getting exactly what he wants from the so-called "media bias against Trump" (including playing the victim of the "media bias" quite well).

And the second that the media fails to cover Trump, he will say another "outrageous" thing to draw them immediately back to him. Just like Huey Long of Louisiana, Trump understands that "Good news is best news, bad news is 2nd best news (so-called media bias), and no news is bad news for a politician." If the media stopped reporting his "outrageous" statements, Trump would be dead in the water, and his competitors would catch him. So if he can keep the media focused upon him (including GOOD and BAD news, which are BOTH GOOD according to Huey Long and Trump in his 1987 book), he will win the Republican nomination and the 8 November 2016 presidential election.

The craic I've found in the 2016 presidential election is how Trump has brilliantly manipulated and controlled the media in content and context on a daily basis keeping him before the American people unlike any of the Republican or Democrat candidates, and having spent less than any other candidate through his expert manipulation resulting in free Trump airtime. Love or hate Trump, everyone is talking about him daily across the pond, and such talk drives up ratings and profits for the so-called "media bias" to where it's a win-win for Trump and the media. And the biggest craic of all occurs when his believers rush to defend Trump against the so-called "media bias," which Trump keeps churning with continued "outrageous" statements per his 1987 book. I would guess that most of the Trump believers have NOT READ OR UNDERSTOOD the content of The Art of the Deal by Trump. If they did, they would see how the so-called "media bias" is being fostered by Trump on a daily basis to keep him in the public eye, which is a winning strategy.

I admire his gall, he is probably the first social media candidate, using how things go viral and click bait comments to get more and more publicity. Style over substance politics. As for media bias, one of Trump's campaign managers was accused of man handling a breitbart journalist, even more sympathetic media organisations aren't safe!

Billy86

K-9 wrote: »

I admire his gall, he is probably the first social media candidate, using how things go viral and click bait comments to get more and more publicity. Style over substance politics. As for media bias, one of Trump's campaign managers was accused of man handling a breitbart journalist, even more sympathetic media organisations aren't safe!

To be fair, yeah. One thing that Trump has done this election that is actually a very valid comparison to Hitler is his use of new media - Hitler had the microphone/loudspeaker and used it masterfully to drown out the noise of his opposition and reach a much, much wider audience than had previously been possible. What Trump is doing with Twitter is very, very similar and (as evidenced in this thread) allows him to control what his followers see and hear. I reckon it's going to be the norm now and would mean a big change in how politicians approach their constituencies etc... and hateful and awful a person as he is, it has to be credited to Trump.

K-9

conditioned games wrote: »

Deleted post

Pm the mods with any questions, thank you.

eire4

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its more the fact that somehow Bernard is absolved of his fans organising to "shut **** down" at a Trump rally, yet Trump being being blamed for the Bernie people organising and threatening a riot.... Trump gets blamed for one of his fans punching a Bernie person, yet the opposite is not true. Basically only one type of rhetoric is to be allowed, otherwise your speech could "incite" and provoke violence, the left using the threat of violence to shut down speech is the issue and then victim blaming.

I think Bernard is right, in that just because someone who supports him does something stupid he should not be blamed, but that holds true for Trump also. Same with "celebrity" endorsements from headcases, eg David Duke for Trump and Bill Ayers for Sanders, has Sanders disavowed Bill Ayers yet?

The people who started this line of attack are the democrats and Republican establishment, its just another line to try and stump the Trump, blame him for Sander affiliated groups attacking him.....makes sense.

Just as an FYI the Friday anti Trump protest was organized by a student group Undocumented Alliance who have no connection to Sanders campaign in any way shape or form although I imagine many in the group are voting for Sanders.

eire4

WarZ wrote: »

Trump has actively condoned violence. He has stated that he would love to punch that protester in the face, has asked his supporters "to rough him up a little" when a protester was being ejected and has offered to pay the legal fees of a man who committed an act of violence at his rally (this same man later said that next time he might have to kill the victim)

He is absolutely responsible. Bernie has repeatedly said that while he supports peoples right to protest he does not in any way condone violence. Trump has said he doesn't condone violence but looking at his numerous statements to the contrary it would seem that he is lying as usual

I have said in previous posts early on in this campaign when Trunps hate speech was really getting going that he was and he is a dangerous demagogue and one of the dangers is when a major figure or leader legitimizes and encourages violence and engages in the kind of hate speech which Trump frequently does he gives a freedom so to speak for his followers to act out and sadly we are now begining to see this come to pass more and more often and publically.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

Superdelegates are about 15% (747/5083=14.69) of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention. This means that 747 of the 5,083 delegates attending the 2016 Democratic National Convention can choose whichever candidate they prefer.

The Republicans have a slightly greater percentage of "unpledged delegates," which function essentially the same as the Democrats superdelegates; i.e., Republicans call them by a different name.

Out of 2,470 total delegates at the Republican National Convention in 2016, 437 are unpledged delegates, or about 18 percent of delegates (437/2470=17.69), who play the same role as superdelegates. Of the 437, 168 are members of the Republican National Committee.

I agree with Billy86 and eire4 that the Democrat superdelegates are troublesome for a democracy, but in like manner the Republican unpledged delegates are also troublesome. Such superdelegates or unpledged delegates exemplify the troublesome nature of the 2 party system as warned by John Adams:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Very good point you bring up there on the Republican side and I very much agree with you that the whole mess really is a prime example of how corrupted and broken this current 2 part monoply on power is in DC. The current system is broken and simply does not represent the will and or best interests of the vast majority of American people.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Bernie has yet to disavow the disruption in Chicago caused by Anti-Trump campaigners, which can't be called a protest since it was outside of the designated protest area, and was in fact illegal under HR 347. By failing to disavow this, as well as the actions of said campaigners in blocking an ambulance from getting to the venue he is allowing it to continue. He could put an end to this violence by disavowing it, but he won't because social unrest and minority angst is what his campaign feeds off. He has yet to specifically disavow Tom DiMassio, who, for a moment looked as though he was attempting to assassinate a presidential candidate. Making a general statement like "I don't condone violence" clearly isn't enough because Trump has said the same many times. Bernie won't be hounded like this because of the media bias against Trump.

As I mentioned elsewhere Fridays Chicago anti Trump protest was organized by the Undocumented Alliance a student group not connected to the Sanders campaign other then I would assume many of them are voting for Sanders as Illinois goes to the polls today.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

You're the one who's using spin here. I don't even know if you could call it spin, it's totally false actually. He said he would pay one person's legal bills, not everyone's. It happened to be a 78 year old man who punched a young lad for obnoxiously sticking a middle finger in his face and Trump sympathised with him. As do I. Hardly a carte blanche to all his supporters. If anything it just shows that Trump is generous to those who are loyal to him, which is something to be admired in a politician, not condemned.

Why do you lie about stuff like this? What do you actually get out of it?

Actually Trump has said he would pay the legal fees for other of his supporters not just this one person.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-to-knock-the-crap-out-of-protesters-offers-to-pay-legal-fees/

jobbridge4life

Billy86 wrote: »

To be fair, yeah. One thing that Trump has done this election that is actually a very valid comparison to Hitler is his use of new media - Hitler had the microphone/loudspeaker and used it masterfully to drown out the noise of his opposition and reach a much, much wider audience than had previously been possible. What Trump is doing with Twitter is very, very similar and (as evidenced in this thread) allows him to control what his followers see and hear. I reckon it's going to be the norm now and would mean a big change in how politicians approach their constituencies etc... and hateful and awful a person as he is, it has to be credited to Trump.

I disagree profoundly.

Barack Obama was the man who utilized social media to its fullest advantage ,first. Obama is the person who pioneered a new form of campaigning. Engaging the common man, earning donations from the lowest earning people that amounted to truly massive amounts.

Trump hasn't pioneered a single thing, all he has done is realise in the connected era, the power of age old hates, and the ancient base instincts of tribalism and racialism.

Hitler wasn't a success because he utilized the microphone, he was a success because he utilized new technology to expound primal violence on the mediums of the day.

Billy86

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I disagree profoundly.

Barack Obama was the man who utilized social media to its fullest advantage ,first. Obama is the person who pioneered a new form of campaigning. Engaging the common man, earning donations from the lowest earning people that amounted to truly massive amounts.

Trump hasn't pioneered a single thing, all he has done is realise in the connected era, the power of age old hates, and the ancient base instincts of tribalism and racialism.

Hitler wasn't a success because he utilized the microphone, he was a success because he utilized new technology to expound primal violence on the mediums of the day.

But in Hitler's time, the loudspeaker was profound, and he used it to get into power before unleashing said violence. That's what Trump is doing with Twitter, and when you try and ignore the loathsome figure he is, he has done a remarkable job of it. I don't recall seeing any high ranking politicians use social media even close to the level of effectiveness that Trump has to be honest. I also have few doubts that he would try to use a lot of underhanded conduct to get further into power if he got any at all politically (again, not too unlike our dear Adolph).

The inventor of the loudspeaker apparently went to his grave with deep depression, because he thought he had a large part to blame in the Holocaust.

eire4

frostyjacks wrote: »

The more I see these flagburning liberals rejoice in shutting down free speech and free assembly, the more I want Trump to win. They will only have themselves to blame if he does.

Shutting down free speech? If your talking about the Trump rally being canceled in Chicago last Friday then that is not accurate. Trump claims that he called the event off after consulting with law enforecment and security. The Chicago Police have stated very clearly that they never had any such consultation and that while there were some fights that they had plenty of man power to handle any situation. The decision to cancel was Trumps.


Beyond that as a dangerous demegogue I think he probably called off the event in a calculated move and then looked to point the finger of blame knowing it would just ramp up his supporters even more and sadly that is a calculation he is probably right on. I obviously don't have any facts to back that last statement up it is simply my opinion based on the kind of behaviour you see from a dangerous demagogue like Trump.

jobbridge4life

Billy86 wrote: »

But in Hitler's time, the loudspeaker was profound, and he used it to get into power before unleashing said violence. That's what Trump is doing with Twitter, and when you try and ignore the loathsome figure he is, he has done a remarkable job of it. I don't recall seeing any high ranking politicians use social media even close to the level of effectiveness that Trump has to be honest. I also have few doubts that he would try to use a lot of underhanded conduct to get further into power if he got any at all politically (again, not too unlike our dear Adolph).

Again, Barack Obama. One need only google the 2008 coverage to see the profound impact of social media on his campaign. I also don't accept that Trump is using social media anymore effectively than others, if one excepts the nature and rhetoric of his campaign. Its like praising someone for getting the front page of a newspaper because they shot someone and claiming they mastered the printing press.

Billy86 wrote: »

The inventor of the loudspeaker apparently went to his grave with deep depression, because he thought he had a large part to blame in the Holocaust.

How sad for him. If so, he committed suicide on the basis of a mistaken belief however.

Colonialboy

So before every Trump rally there is a video messgae played where the attendees are informed that there are most likely protestors within the crowd and that people are told to just ignore the protestors.

By the way is there any talk of the social media campaign , the university letters being written, the organisations who are co-ordinating the protests at Trump rallys. Who is behind the protest campaign at Trump rallys ?
Are they random attendees going on a solo run, or is it an orchestrated planned and funded campaign.

Its all academic , Trump has the nomination no matter what happens today.

Its a great vistory for democracy, record republican turn out, record numbers of voters, isnt that what we as a society should want.
The record numbers of people are engaged with politics, or do people only want record numbers of people engaged with politics as long as it agrees with their politics.

Colonialboy

Hilary is starting to crack, she is starting to unravel..multiple gaffes in recent days
She has spun , flip flopped and lied so much she doesnt know who or what she stands for or what her values are, other than what her Wall St masters tell her.
The best one is where she visits a coal state reliant on coal and mining jobs for their rural economys and she promises to put miners out of buisness in hte interests of clean energy.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/03/15/hillary-clinton-rash-gaffes-frontrunner-stumbles-over-aids-coal-miners-and-libya/yBfrCnZ1ymccqxSWYk2iOM/story.html

If Trump had made the same gaffess, twitter would go into meltdown.
Hilary epitomises WAshington politics , no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interest (money and power).

K-9

Mini Super Tuesday could be make or break for her, as in going from a coronation to a real race. If she loses another few "unassailable" leads tonight, things become very interesting.

embraer170

Both Trump and Hillary look like they are ahead.
Ok, only about 2.5% of votes counted in both races.

BOHtox

Where do you all get your results/news for primaries/caucuses?

The Washington Post is good because it gives you a county by county breakdown of the state's votes. It's a bit slow though. CNN seem to be 15-20% ahead in terms of votes reported.

538 is good for stats, predictions, different permiatations and things to look out for.

I'm sure I'm missing a good few though.

embraer170

I just follow it here:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/mar/15/election-live-coverage-florida-ohio-primary-trump-sanders-rubio-clinton-kasich

BOHtox

embraer170 wrote: »

I just follow it here:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/mar/15/election-live-coverage-florida-ohio-primary-trump-sanders-rubio-clinton-kasich

That's really good. I like that

MadYaker

Colonialboy wrote: »

So before every Trump rally there is a video messgae played where the attendees are informed that there are most likely protestors within the crowd and that people are told to just ignore the protestors.

By the way is there any talk of the social media campaign , the university letters being written, the organisations who are co-ordinating the protests at Trump rallys. Who is behind the protest campaign at Trump rallys ?
Are they random attendees going on a solo run, or is it an orchestrated planned and funded campaign.

Its all academic , Trump has the nomination no matter what happens today.

Its a great vistory for democracy, record republican turn out, record numbers of voters, isnt that what we as a society should want.
The record numbers of people are engaged with politics, or do people only want record numbers of people engaged with politics as long as it agrees with their politics.

Just because Trump is what the majority of Republican voters want doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing or in the nation's best interests. All it really does is highlight the tragic state of the GOP. Trump will lose to Hillary in November anyway, as you say, it's all academic.

embraer170

If you find a CNN USA stream online, it is quite a bit ahead of the Guardian.

Definitely seems Florida has been won by Trump and Hillary. 65+ % of votes are in.

K-9

Goodbye to Rubio then. Hilary getting Florida was expected. I'm of tomorrow so first time I can follow it into the night. I tend to go for old skool radio coverage.

embraer170

CNN has called Florida for Trump and Clinton.

BOHtox

Goodbye Rubio Tuesday

K-9

Kasich on track to win Ohio from exit polls, probably means nothing in the grand scheme of things! Maybe gives Rubio an excuse to hang on in there?

BoJack Horseman

Rubio suspends campaign.

SimonTemplar

It seems Clinton has won Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. If so, does she have an insurmountable lead over Saunders?

BoJack Horseman

And the Guardian are now reporting the first precinct in Illinois going to Hillary & Donald, though very early days obviously.

Hill-dog will get a clean sweep.

Black Swan

With politicians, you don't get something for nothing...

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who bowed out of the Republican presidential race may have a place in Trump's cabinet (in exchange for his endorsement of Trump). Then again the potential reward may have been greater from Trump to Christie (e.g., Vice Presidential running mate). Christie as VP would benefit Trump in that Christie has governance experience, while Trump has ZERO. Although NJ only has 14 electoral votes, Christie is popular in his state and could swing it in Trump's favour.

Sarah Palin endorsed Trump during January and now campaigns for him. She is popular with the Tea Party faction of the Republican party, and can sway many of their votes. What post has been promised for Palin in exchange for her labours? Heaven forbid she is made Secretary of State, given her record of quitting halfway through her 1st term as Alaska's governor (that "coincidentally" occurred during a bi-partisan investigation of her activities as governor, which promptly concluded after her resignation). Not only this, Secretary of State is a top position for the US government that is highly involved in international diplomacy, which Palin has zero experience. Palin didn't even have a US passport until before the 2008 McCain-Palin nomination. I can just imagine the reception she would get with her using profane "Punk-ass, little thuggery" type expressions with future protesters or foreign diplomats as the US Secretary of State.

Ben Carson endorsed Trump last Friday, but what does he expect in return for his endorsement? Like Trump, Carson has ZERO governance, but does have qualifications in medicine. Perhaps he was promised the Health and Human Services cabinet position, or Surgeon General?