2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

He has said enough and stayed enough on message in some instances that he cannot row back on them, trade, immigration and the wall, military, even at that its still more than any other candidate promises. I believe he is sincere on those issues, populist on others, not reflecting his real beliefs, see legalising drugs v his position now becasue he needs to be against it to win the nomination

He isnt part of the establishment or have you not been following this campaign? Literally everyone is attacking him. He's self funding, the Republican donors and party leaders held a meeting on how to get rid of him. The democrats attack him, the left wing lunatics hate him, the religious nutters dont trust him. The Israeli lobby tells people not to vote for him. He's the ultimate anti establishment candidate.

Isn't that the beauty of Trump, you pick and choose what he really believes in, meanwhile another supporter picks a different set of things they think Trump really believes in. No different to any other politician really.

The earlier comparison to Boris is pretty spot on.

K-9

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.ie

Clever pick by Obama for the Supreme Court, seen as tough on lae and order, centrist and has attracted praise from Republicans previously. Nullified any claims that he'd nominate a liberal judge.

Ad for Putin and Trump, I've given up trying to make sense of Trump at this stage, a man of contradictions to put it politely.

Black Swan

K-9 wrote: »

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.ie

Clever pick by Obama for the Supreme Court, seen as tough on lae and order, centrist and has attracted praise from Republicans previously. Nullified any claims that he'd nominate a liberal judge.

The Republican controlled US Senate will stall until after January 2017 before considering a nominee from the newly sworn in 2017 president. If challenged, they will use the Joe Biden statement from 1992, replaying that repetitively until Obama leaves office.

Amazingfun

If confirmed, Garland would be the fourth Jewish justice on the nation’s highest court, which would be composed entirely of Jews and Catholics. The three current Jewish members of the Supreme Court are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elana Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

In 2012, demographers estimated the core American Jewish population (including religious and non-religious) to be 5,425,000 (or 1.73% of the US population in 2012.

It's pretty incredible really, having so many Jewish people on the Supreme Court. And having no Protestants at all is raising quite a few eyebrows round American social media.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Unfortunately identity politics has always been a hidden factor in deciding such a judge ( "Supreme court" by Jeffrey Tobin) to appease various political stakeholders. Lately it has been the leftists who have embraced this to strengthen their candidates ("Wise Latina"). However in this case Obama looks to have made a fairly honest attempt to pick a moderate judge, with any attempt to block by the Republicans rebounding upon them being an added bonus.

ancapailldorcha

Billy86, please take the funny pics to CVPL.

walshb

Trump is disgrace with his latest remarks. Inciting riotous behaviour should he not get the nomination.

Amazingfun

walshb wrote: »

Trump is disgrace with his latest remarks. Inciting riotous behaviour should he not get the nomination.

Ridiculous accusation, he didn't "incite" anything. He is exactly right! When millions of people have spent the last months working for his nomination in good faith, see him win the majority of States and lead the pack all the way---and only to be cheated by the very party they are members of, well then the possibility of riots in response is not a wild conclusion to come to.

Akrasia

FISMA. wrote: »

Why would White Supremacist and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke Will Quigg endorse Donald Trump Hillary Clinton for president 2016 this past weekend?

[/S]
Strange how CNN has not interviewed Clinton on the endorsement nor drawn conclusions based upon Clinton's failure to repudiate the Klan.

Clinton would immediately reject that endorsement. Trumps problem was not that David Duke endorsed him, it was that he prevaricated when asked to condemn him

Amazingfun

Akrasia wrote: »

Clinton would immediately reject that endorsement. Trumps problem was not that David Duke endorsed him, it was that he prevaricated when asked to condemn him

He didn't endorse him. It was a lie to begin with, one that was already dealt with on this thread.

Akrasia

Amazingfun wrote: »

He didn't endorse him. It was a lie to begin with, one that was already dealt with on this thread.

OK you're right. Calling on kkk members to vote for Trump is not an endorsement. But regardless, trump still refused to reject him when directly asked to.

Amazingfun

Akrasia wrote: »

OK you're right. Calling on kkk members to vote for Trump is not an endorsement. But regardless, trump still refused to reject him when directly asked to.

David Duke has not been a member of the KKK for nearly FORTY YEARS, lol, he is not a member now, and so could not "call on KKK members to vote for Trump". Why do you keep lying?

eire4

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Sanders has been dead for some time. Let go folks. His only relevance now is in terms of influencing Clinton's platform. He will not be the nominee.

Odds suggest he won't be yes but it is not quite over yet. Clinton has had all her most favourable states front loaded. Now the second half so to speak has much more states that are likely to be favourable to Sanders. The next 10 states leading up to New York next month will be crucial. If Sanders can win at least 7 of them then the Democratic side is not a done deal yet.

B_Wayne

Amazingfun wrote: »

David Duke has not been a member of the KKK for nearly FORTY YEARS, lol, he is not a member now, and so could not "call on KKK members to vote for Trump". Why do you keep lying?

He's still very much so a white supremacists who largely appeals to the same demographic of the KKK, how does that suit you?

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

Man you should really just seek out the numbers yourself. Before Super-Delegates it's about 1100-775 now. Meaning that to get to 2025 (majority of non-Super-Delegates) Sanders needs to win 1250-925 or about 58%. Illinois ain't the "Old South", he didn't win there. Florida he was destroyed. Hillary just needs a couple of big states and she's insurmountable. There's about 260 delegates up next week, if he can't win a majority of them will that be it?

No question he is up against it to win the Democratic nomination but the idea it is over is a bit premature. As for Illinois that actually is an example of how not over it is. Firstly Illinois is Hilary Clinton's home state. She was born in Chicago. Secondly polls about a week before the election had her up by 30 odd points. Yet she ended up winning her home state by only 1.8%. Yes she won but that is not the performance of a race that is over.

Amazingfun

B_Wayne wrote: »

He's still very much so a white supremacists who largely appeals to the same demographic of the KKK, how does that suit you?

What "suits me", is reality. He is not a "white supremacist", and the KKK is hardly a thriving entity in 2016.

Further, the original post was a query as to why Hillary Clinton has not rejected the actual endorsement she received from an actual dragon in the actual KKK. Note how there has been hardly a bleep in the media about it, yet Trump is hounded endlessly over an imaginary endorsement from a man no longer associated with it.

For the record, I think it's stupid for either candidate to have to "officially" disavow fringe groups supporting them, but the media's relentless focus on Trump regarding this crap is telling.

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not the best night, indeed. Looks like the US presidential election will probably be a choice between right wing and further right wing.

Sadly your probably going to be right although Sanders could well get himself back in contention if he can go on a string of wins over the next 10 states in the lead up to New York next month.

Akrasia

Amazingfun wrote: »

David Duke has not been a member of the KKK for nearly FORTY YEARS, lol, he is not a member now, and so could not "call on KKK members to vote for Trump". Why do you keep lying?

Anyone can call on anyone to do anything. The entire point of the story, is that Trump was given ample opportunity to distance himself from David Duke and he repeatedly chose not to

Of course, later on he 'flip flopped' but this is standard Trump tactics. Court controversial headlines and then claim the opposite a few days later...

It has been estimated that Trump has gotten 2 billion dollars in free media advertising so far. (and Trump supporters still claim that the media is biased against him......) Cognitive dissonance is alive and well.

Trump supporter: Trump is winning despite spending less than any other candidate

Rational person: that's because he's been saying horrific things in order to get free publicity from the media

Trump supporter: This is his strategy, Trump is a political genius, he's saying controversial things to win the election, afterwards, he'll become a normal moderate politician

Rational person: But saying these incendiary controversial things is turning people against him, people who oppose his message are protesting against him

Trump supporter: That's because the media is biased against him and only reporting the negative things he says....

Amazingfun

Akrasia wrote: »

Anyone can call on anyone to do anything. ..

No kidding, hence the stupidity of the media hounding candidates over such occurrences, real or imagined.

Yet you stated that :

1. David Duke "endorsed" Trump.

2. That Duke "called upon the KKK to support Trump".

Both statements are false, and yet despite already having been debunked earlier in the thread, you have yet to retract them.

fly_agaric

walshb wrote: »

Trump is disgrace with his latest remarks. Inciting riotous behaviour should he not get the nomination.

Probably a statement of fact. Imagine things will get very "interesting" at that convention if the Republican bigwigs and donors dump Trump (or Cruz?) for someone else they are comfy with & believe has better chance in the election.
Feel that could happen if either wins.

Akrasia

Amazingfun wrote: »

No kidding, hence the stupidity of the media hounding candidates over such occurrences, real or imagined.

Yet you stated that :

1. David Duke "endorsed" Trump.


2. That Duke "called upon the KKK to support Trump".

Both statements are false, and yet despite already having been debunked earlier in the thread, you have yet to retract them.

you're right, Duke didn't 'endorse' Trump, he just told people to vote for him

I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump. In fact, I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-duke-trump-219777#ixzz43BSuIlcp

Amazingfun

Akrasia wrote: »

you're right, Duke didn't 'endorse' Trump, he just told people to vote for him

Yes, I know that already. And so what if he supports Trump, you just finished saying yourself "anyone can tell anyone to do anything" :pac:

Glad you've corrected your earlier claims.

Akrasia

Amazingfun wrote: »

Yes, I know that already. And so what if he supports Trump, you just finished saying yourself "anyone can tell anyone to do anything" :pac:

Glad you've corrected your earlier claims.

I 'corrected' my earlier claims because I don't care about the semantics attached to the word 'endorsement' Everything else still stands

And as I've already said, I don't care what David Duke says. It's Trump's reaction that matters. Ask any politician who isn't a racist courting a racist demographic if they want to be associated with David Duke or the KKK and the answer is an immediate "No of course not, I want nothing to do with them"

Ask Donald Trump and you get humming and hawing and feigning ignorance as if he has never heard of the KKK before.

That is why it matters. Trump dug his own hole on this one, it's only his blinkered supporters who can't see why this is a problem.

If Trump is even considering pandering to the feckin KKK, if he thinks it'll help his campaign, (and that alone is evidence of terrible judgement) then what will he do as president?

ebbsy

Don't think they will screw Trump at the convention for the following reasons.

1. His supporters wouldn't vote for a substitute candidate.

2.He would be crazy enough to run by himself. That would bury the Republicans chances.


They are stuck with him I think.

Amazingfun

What a tedious exercise this has become. You keep on lying.

Trump "disavowed" Duke. He did it more than once despite the claim of Duke "endorsing" him to be a falsehood.

Here is Trump in February, before the Jake Tapper interview where he sprang the KKK BS on him yet again:

Has Hillary done this yet regarding the above endorsement from an actual KKK member? Nope. And she hasn't been hounded about it at all by those who make it a daily Trump smear. I wonder why that is......

Akrasia

ebbsy wrote: »

Don't think they will screw Trump at the convention for the following reasons.

1. His supporters wouldn't vote for a substitute candidate.

2.He would be crazy enough to run by himself. That would bury the Republicans chances.


They are stuck with him I think.

I'm pretty sure that there is an inner conflict within the republican party that thinks it would be better to sacrifice the 2016 presidency rather than risk having trump be their representative

Is it better to lose one election, or to lose the entire party should Trump become the official face of the GOP?

Akrasia

Amazingfun wrote: »

What a tedious exercise this has become. You keep on lying.

Trump "disavowed" Duke. He did it more than once despite the claim of Duke "endorsing" him to be a falsehood.

Here is Trump in February, before the Jake Tapper interview where he sprang the KKK BS on him yet again:

Has Hillary done this yet regarding the above endorsement from an actual KKK member? Nope. And she hasn't been hounded about it at all by those who make it a daily Trump smear. I wonder why that is......

Its funny when Trump supporters call people liars when there are videos of Trump saying the exact things I am saying he said.

Trump is a guy who claims to be a really really smart guy with an excellent memory, who says one thing one day, and the opposite thing a few days later.

It's obvious to everyone else what kind of man this is.

K-9

Amazingfun wrote: »

What "suits me", is reality. He is not a "white supremacist", and the KKK is hardly a thriving entity in 2016.

Further, the original post was a query as to why Hillary Clinton has not rejected the actual endorsement she received from an actual dragon in the actual KKK. Note how there has been hardly a bleep in the media about it, yet Trump is hounded endlessly over an imaginary endorsement from a man no longer associated with it.

For the record, I think it's stupid for either candidate to have to "officially" disavow fringe groups supporting them, but the media's relentless focus on Trump regarding this crap is telling.

The last part you are being consistent, I said it was a non issue about Trump though, he handled it badly. This wouldn't have been an issue 10 years ago even.

If you think the whole thing is stupid, why argue for a continuation of stupidity?

As for bias, you'll find Trump supporters think everything is against them, Sanders as well and even Republican supporters think it is pro Trump. Trump gets by far the most coverage so they do have a point.

Amazingfun

Akrasia wrote: »

Its funny when Trump supporters call people liars when there are videos of Trump saying the exact things I am saying he said.

It's obvious to everyone else what kind of man this is.

But you are a liar. You made repeated claims about David Duke that were untrue, and only after being forced to correct yourself did you half-heartedly do so.
And he did not say what you said, as Duke never endorsed him, lol. Tapper was lying, and Trump was correct in saying he didn't know anything about what he was talking about since it turned out he had not endorsed him anyways.

Plus, you keep on ignoring the fact Hillary has been endorsed by the actual KKK (whatever that is these days), and the press has been verrrrry quiet on that, nor has she been grilled on it and forced to "disavow".

Anyways, I am done with this ridiculous issue.
For anyone interested in what Duke actually said, best to listen to the man himself rather than opinion: