2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

ebbsy

Akrasia wrote: »

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?

You might be right.However they have also lost the last two as well.

ebbsy

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.

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.

Don't think this tax records attack is going to work. Romney got stuck in and it got him nowhere.

It's going to take something bog to derail Trump.

Something like an email perhaps ?

B_Wayne

This is an example of content on David Duke's site, if this man is not a hard done by white supremacist then there's no white supremacists... The man engages in every single form of hatred so yep Duke is a pretty massive figure of hatred to get support off of.

http://davidduke.com/if-the-white-race-is-to-be-condemned-in-the-liberal-press-why-are-not-the-jewish-people-condemned-the-worlds-leading-role-in-the-slave-trade-over-the-last-2000-years/

Amazingfun

B_Wayne wrote: »

This is an example of content on David Duke's site, if this man is not a hard done by white supremacist then there's no white supremacists... The man engages in every single form of hatred so yep Duke is a pretty massive figure of hatred to get support off of.

http://davidduke.com/if-the-white-race-is-to-be-condemned-in-the-liberal-press-why-are-not-the-jewish-people-condemned-the-worlds-leading-role-in-the-slave-trade-over-the-last-2000-years/

You link to this:


The Jewish Religion’s Position on the Slave Trade and Sexual Abuse: The Shocking Truth!

What about this subject equates to him being a "white supremacist", or proves he is engaging in "every single form of hatred"?

As to why you insist on this ongoing focus on David Duke, I have no idea.

Billy86

Well here's one of the craziest things I've read in a long, long time. http://davidduke.com/beyonce-superbowl-society-taken-us/

PS. Fun game: go to the front page and see how many anti Semitic articles you can spot!

Mjollnir

Amazingfun wrote: »

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".

Odd that you would call someone a liar and then assert that Clinton has been 'edorsed by the actual KKK' when, in fact, it's only one person in the KKK, and one who has a history of tweeing very favorable things about Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html

Amazingfun

Mjollnir wrote: »

Odd that you would call someone a liar and then assert that Clinton has been 'edorsed by the actual KKK' when, in fact, it's only one person in the KKK, and one who has a history of tweeing very favorable things about Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html

He is a Grand Dragon , a current member of whatever joke the "KKK" is today :rolleyes: Yet, many on this bizarre thread continue to bang the "David Duke/KKK" drum, even though the man has not been associated with it for nearly forty years

That is what is truly "odd".

B_Wayne

Amazingfun wrote: »

You link to this:


The Jewish Religion’s Position on the Slave Trade and Sexual Abuse: The Shocking Truth!

What about this subject equates to him being a "white supremacist", or proves he is engaging in "every single form of hatred"?

As to why you insist on this ongoing focus on David Duke, I have no idea.

He asserts that it was not the "white race" responsible for the slave trade as decent human beings would recognise that it was wrong. But the true dominant force was in fact Jewish people so why not blame the Jews instead... It's basically racist rewritings of the slave trade.

So yep, supremacy, antisemitism then further browsing will find loads of racism. Eg rants about how white people face far more racism than black people. Evil refugee rants. You'd think it was a perfectly innocent piece...

Billy86

The Economist calls Trump being elected one of the 10 biggest risks to the global economy: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35828747

Ironically enough, tied with jihadi terrorists!

Mjollnir

Amazingfun wrote: »

He is a Grand Dragon , a current member of whatever joke the "KKK" is today :rolleyes: Yet, many on this bizarre thread continue to bang the "David Duke/KKK" drum, even though the man has not been associated with it for nearly forty years

That is what is truly "odd".

LOL! Thanks for admitting the she wasn't endorsed by the KKK after all.

And you continue to harp on a distinction w/out a differnence in this case. Both are rabid white supremacists, and that one wears robes and one doesn't any longer is utterly cosmetic and w/out any real substantive weight.

Rationalizations are most unbecoming.

Amazingfun

Mjollnir wrote: »

LOL! Thanks for admitting the she wasn't endorsed by the KKK after all.

And you continue to harp on a distinction w/out a differnence in this case. Both are rabid white supremacists, and that one wears robes and one doesn't any longer is utterly cosmetic and w/out any real substantive weight.

Rationalizations are most unbecoming.

She was endorsed by a current and active member of the KKK, so what are you on about?

Duke is not a member of the KKK, hasn't been for decades, and you deciding he is makes little difference to me or anyone else I am sure.

Only interesting point in all of this is how Trump continues to be hounded over an irrelevant/ non-event, and Hillary gets yet another pass on her actual endorsement from an active KKK, and for the Clinton(s) past support too:

Robert Byrd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
(scroll down a bit for the extensive section on the KKK)

eire4

eire4 wrote: »

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.

Genuine question, what's your browser set-up? Loving all the spaces but I'm just wondering if you did them or if it's a browser issue.


Also it's done. It's amazing how I kept explaining maths to people before the last few "big" votes and people came back at me for my assumptions. No assumptions, he needs 58-42 from here on. It's not going to happen, how hard is it to admit that what you would love to happen isn't going to? I would still love him to somehow do it but at this stage those thousands of people are just throwing their money away.

Akrasia

Amazingfun wrote: »

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.

It's funny, when David Duke says he will vote for Trump and says people who don't vote for him are 'race traitors' or whatever, that's not an 'endorsement' but when some other KKK guy says 'I'm voting for Hilllary' this is an 'endorsement'

But whatever dude.

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.

Trump did know who David Duke was, he prevaricated on disavowing his support and lied in the process. But I'm bored of this point now, there are so many other similar incidents where trump says outrageous things to get attention, and then denies he ever said them a few days later, and his supporters completely lap it up.

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".

I'm not a Clinton supporter, and I don't care what the KKK says about anything. But I would be absolutely shocked if Clinton didn't utterly disavow any support from this guy if asked a direct question about it. That's the difference. Trump is courting voters from the white supremacist demographic, so he was hesitant in publicly speaking against David Duke on that occasion. Later on, he decided that it was too much of a liability so he changed his position again, but the message was already delivered loud and clear to the racists and bigots of America. Trump is their guy.

LuckyLloyd

Trump's answer to 'what would happen if they stole the convention from you' was nothing more than common sense. It happened in 1968 ffs. If he walks in there with a mandate of 1100+ delegates and they take the nomination away from him Cleveland will turn into a warzone. The media trying to portray Trump's blunt answer to that effect as 'sinister' or whatever is retarded.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Trump's answer to 'what would happen if they stole the convention from you' was nothing more than common sense. It happened in 1968 ffs. If he walks in there with a mandate of 1100+ delegates and they take the nomination away from him Cleveland will turn into a warzone. The media trying to portray Trump's blunt answer to that effect as 'sinister' or whatever is retarded.

This is the thing though. If they decide to screw him over will he run as an Independent? And if he does then realistically what'll he win? A couple of biggish states. That's all he has to do then no-one hits 270. Then it goes to the house to pick a President.

It's been said but he really is playing the system so perfectly, he's seeing that it's all bull**** and he's doing it. Lie, deny, obfuscate.

In the end if he does get the nomination then all he has to do is get a quarter of the people who usually don't vote to vote for him. Then he's president. And he's already pretty much doing it, big turn-out for the Republican Primary so far.

Akrasia

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Trump's answer to 'what would happen if they stole the convention from you' was nothing more than common sense. It happened in 1968 ffs. If he walks in there with a mandate of 1100+ delegates and they take the nomination away from him Cleveland will turn into a warzone. The media trying to portray Trump's blunt answer to that effect as 'sinister' or whatever is retarded.

Trump has always threatened to retaliate if he's 'not treated fairly' by the GOP

He's probably stating the truth when he says there would be riots if they denied him the nomination at the convention, but there are ways that trump can be denied the nomination that are perfectly within the rules he signed up for.

If Trump gets a plurality of delegates, but not a majority, then the delegates are perfectly entitled to nominate a candidate that they believe will have a better chance of getting elected and representing the policies of the Party.

A responsible politician will call on his supporters to respect the process, Trump is not doing this. He has basically said that he demands the nomination if he wins the most pledged delegates, but that's not how it works. The minimum number of delegates required to be nominated is set at 1,237. If Trump doesn't reach this number, then he is not automatically nominated.

You can be guaranteed, that if Trump somehow gets to the convention with fewer pledged delegates than Cruz, he would be perfectly happy to be selected as part of a brokered convention.

Amazingfun

Akrasia wrote: »

It's funny, when David Duke says he will vote for Trump and says people who don't vote for him are 'race traitors' or whatever, that's not an 'endorsement' but when some other KKK guy says 'I'm voting for Hilllary' this is an 'endorsement'

I'm not a Clinton supporter, and I don't care what the KKK says about anything. But I would be absolutely shocked if Clinton didn't utterly disavow any support from this guy if asked a direct question about it. That's the difference.

Again:

Duke is not a member of the KKK . He made no endorsement of Trump.
You claimed he had, you claimed too he "called on the KKK to vote for Trump". He didn't, end of.

Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
“We want Hillary Clinton to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph.

"We want Hilary to win", says a Grand Dragon of the KKK. This is an endorsement.
As has already been explained to you, ad nauseam, this is a non-event really, but the contrast in how the media is treating Trump, flat out lying about Duke/KKK endorsements, suggesting he has some kind of relationship with Trump (falsehood), all whilst ignoring this Hillary/KKK stuff-is what does matter as it is just more evidence of how they are trying to stop his candidacy. Trump is well within his rights to treat them with contempt, and there are few more deserving of it than Jake Tapper.

You repeating that you somehow just know Hillary would reject such an endorsement is not what matters. The fact is you have to make such an assumption since the media is ignoring her KKK-crap completely. So we don't know what her response would be since she hasn't been made to answer! And the reason for that omission is they don't really care about any of this, all this hysteria was ever about was to try and smear Trump. Great to see it fail

LuckyLloyd

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump has always threatened to retaliate if he's 'not treated fairly' by the GOP

He's probably stating the truth when he says there would be riots if they denied him the nomination at the convention, but there are ways that trump can be denied the nomination that are perfectly within the rules he signed up for.

If Trump gets a plurality of delegates, but not a majority, then the delegates are perfectly entitled to nominate a candidate that they believe will have a better chance of getting elected and representing the policies of the Party.

A responsible politician will call on his supporters to respect the process, Trump is not doing this. He has basically said that he demands the nomination if he wins the most pledged delegates, but that's not how it works. The minimum number of delegates required to be nominated is set at 1,237. If Trump doesn't reach this number, then he is not automatically nominated.

You can be guaranteed, that if Trump somehow gets to the convention with fewer pledged delegates than Cruz, he would be perfectly happy to be selected as part of a brokered convention.

Trump isn't really a politician in any traditional sense. I don't see why people would expect him to start acting like one and I certainly don't see how he would benefit in anyway if he did given that so many of his voters cite his 'realness' as a key rationale for their support.

We can be as aware of the rules as we like, but the only correct answer to 'what happens if Trump has between 1000 and 1237 delegates but does not receive the nomination?' is 'chaos and rioting'.

The point here for me is that there is a very important conversation to be had around worst case scenarios of how the Republican Convention could play out. If the party establishment try and essentially steal it and nominate someone other than Trump or Cruz they could scuttle their party.

Red King

Jesus lads can ye move on from the KKK discussion it is getting a bit repetitive now.

Anyway, did anyone see that Trump outright accused Clinton of "being involved in corruption all her professional life" on twitter last night.

Be interesting to see how she responds.

Akrasia

Red King wrote: »

Jesus lads can ye move on from the KKK discussion it is getting a bit repetitive now.

Anyway, did anyone see that Trump outright accused Clinton of "being involved in corruption all her professional life" on twitter last night.

Be interesting to see how she responds.

The Washington Post have ran a piece showing that the Clintons have raised 3 billion over the last 40 years, 2/3 of that was for their Clinton foundation, the other billion was political and personal contributions

All Trump has to say is 'I've donated money to her, and she did x y and z favours in return.


Trump is definitely gonna play this up (if he can get past attack adds that make Hillary Bark like a dog.)

Red King

That attack ad was brilliant in fairness, Hillary's response not so much

ancapailldorcha

Red King wrote: »

That attack ad was brilliant in fairness, Hillary's response not so much

Please try to make a more substantial contribution that this.

Black Swan

1,237 delegates are needed to win the Republican nomination for president. Trump today has 678 or 54.8% of this threshold number, while Cruz 418 or 33.8%, and Kasich 145 or 11.7%. Kasich cannot realistically win the necessary 1,237 delegates, so it's questionable why he remains in the race for the nomination. Perhaps Kasich hopes for a Vice President slot as part of a convention brokered compromise?

If Trump does not break the nomination delegate threshold before the 18-21 July 2016 convention in Cleveland, it may become a brokered one, but Kasich will more than likely have far too few delegates to realistically become the brokered nominee president.

Out of 2,470 total delegates at the July convention, 437 or 35.3% of the 1,237 threshold are Republican unpledged delegates, who play a similar role as Democrat superdelegates. If no presidential candidate breaks the 1,237 threshold, these unpledged delegates can swing a brokered convention.

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

Genuine question, what's your browser set-up? Loving all the spaces but I'm just wondering if you did them or if it's a browser issue.


Also it's done. It's amazing how I kept explaining maths to people before the last few "big" votes and people came back at me for my assumptions. No assumptions, he needs 58-42 from here on. It's not going to happen, how hard is it to admit that what you would love to happen isn't going to? I would still love him to somehow do it but at this stage those thousands of people are just throwing their money away.

I agree with you that sadly Clinton probably will get the Democratic nomination. But to say that it is over is a bit premature given the kind of states that are coming up. Sanders has a good shot in all 10 of the upcoming states and certainly none of them are as favourable to Clinton as were the southern ones for her in the early going. Sanders needs to win and win well as you say and he certainly is up against it. But it is not over at this point and if Sanders wins at least 7 of the next 10 states that makes things very interesting heading into New York next month.

JPNelsforearm

K-9 wrote: »

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.

Absolutely, Trump is as flawed as anyone, I think all politicians and politics is a joke, but Trump stands on his own and represents himself, selling himself. but its also the people who are against him, leftists, and other assorted lunatics.

When you have these people against you, you know you are doing something right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0diJNybk0Mw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3vcvGpALQ

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

"Anti Trump stuff"

The choice is Trump Sanders and Hillary. I agree with more of what Trump says and who he is, then I do Hillary and Sanders, you can nit pick etc, but tbh the way Trump carries himself, his not give a **** attitude, his refusal to kowtow to the media, and the conventional way of doing things appeals to me. In addition the "Trump is literally Hitler" crowd, sjw's, blm and the forces arrayed against him, mean that any push back is to be supported.

Trump will not "wreck" the US, he wont cause "race riots", he wont engage in massive wars overseas. He might be a great president, he might be a poor one, who knows, what he will not be is a continuation of the status quo, and that is to be welcomed. Politics is a cosy club, Trump has gatecrashed that club for the betterment of everyone

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The choice is Trump Sanders and Hillary. I agree with more of what Trump says and who he is, then I do Hillary and Sanders, you can nit pick etc, but tbh the way Trump carries himself, his not give a **** attitude, his refusal to kowtow to the media, and the conventional way of doing things appeals to me. In addition the "Trump is literally Hitler" crowd, sjw's, blm and the forces arrayed against him, mean that any push back is to be supported.

Trump will not "wreck" the US, he wont cause "race riots", he wont engage in massive wars overseas. He might be a great president, he might be a poor one, who knows, what he will not be is a continuation of the status quo, and that is to be welcomed. Politics is a cosy club, Trump has gatecrashed that club for the betterment of everyone

You've failed to answer for so many of your lies on Trump, and Trump's lies himself, that there's not much point paying attention to you at this point to be honest. I have repeatedly addressed everything you said in this post over and over. You have failed to reply to those posts, over and over. You don't even know what your he stands for. I'll just take your failure to address any of the points brought up as your own admission of being wrong.

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

You've failed to answer for so many of your lies on Trump, and Trump's lies himself, that there's not much point paying attention to you at this point to be honest. I have repeatedly addressed everything you said in this post over and over. You have failed to reply to those posts, over and over. You don't even know what your he stands for. I'll just take your failure to address any of the points brought up as your own admission of being wrong.

Or honestly not giving a ****, he's a lying scumbag, so what? Hillary isnt? that is the choice, its not a deep field of civic minded honest people who are running. Trump is the least worst.

As for your points, half of it was left wing propaganda, whats the point, I'll focus on one, Trump has said he will not defund planned parethood, he can say he is personally opposed to abortion, but he has not said he will flog the dead horse that is Roe V Wade. You can post as many left wing sites proclaiming he will return women to the stone age, but its just not true, republicans and right wing sutes harbour the same misgivings about his fealty to overturning or even pretending to fight Roe v Wade as leftists do in the other direction.
In short, Trump will not do anything about abortion or planned parenthood, its a complete media fabrication to think that he will.

There are as much conservative blogs and politicians going after Trump on the same issue left wing and feminists are to make one question their motives and honesty. In short, thats why I support Trump, both types of people I think are morons are going after him on the same issues.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NglssDgZ-yE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pqkOr94TAc

JPNelsforearm

Red King wrote: »

Jesus lads can ye move on from the KKK discussion it is getting a bit repetitive now.

I agree, lets discuss whether Bernie Sanders disavowed anti American/anti white terrorist Bill Ayers?

jobbridge4life

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I agree, lets discuss whether Bernie Sanders disavowed anti American/anti white terrorist Bill Ayers?

The imputation is that he didn't and therefor he is as bad as Trump. But since you support Trump you don't really have a leg to stand on.

'Guys seriously my candidate is at least as bad as yours'

The future is bright.