2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Akrasia

MadYaker wrote: »

I thought spouses/children were considered a no go area in campaigns?

This campaign is going to have a bottom of the barrel so clean you could perform brain surgery on it

WarZ

There are allegations that a Cruz PAC paid 500k to Fiorini's campagin as hush money.

Seeing Trump and Cruz attack each other is car crash television. The republican party really is the party that just keeps on giving.

The Randy Riverbeast

MadYaker wrote: »

I thought spouses/children were considered a no go area in campaigns?

That's PC, now you need to be the opposite of PC and tell people what you think all the time. If you think their wife is a fat whore you have to say it or the SJWs win.

EDIT: could have sworn I posted this in another thread. In general, yes. The families tend to be innocent people who have no real involvement so having a go at the family would end badly for everyone and the people being targeted arent even in the running. This campaign has through out what should be and instead replaced it with a free for all, nothing is off limits anymore.

Inquitus

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

That's PC, now you need to be the opposite of PC and tell people what you think all the time. If you think their wife is a fat whore you have to say it or the SJWs win.

The SJW's are just as much of a problem as the fundamentalist Trump supporters, neither opposites each at the far end of the spectrum has any respect for the vast majority of people who live in the middle of the range.

timmyntc

MadYaker wrote: »

I thought spouses/children were considered a no go area in campaigns?

I think they were until the Cruz campaign ran that ad featuring Donald Trump's wife.

Manach

I believe there were earlier in the campaign press attacks on Cruz's kids so that might have contributed to his rather robust response.

KingBrian2

This campaign has reached a new low. Do Americans really want to know the personal lives of their candidates? I know the GOP do want their nominee to be perfect gentlemen but this manner of scrutiny is just embarrassing.

Wildlife Actor

I thought would take longer to find the link between Trump and the National Enquirer.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/trumps-alliance-with-the-national-enquirer.html

embraer170

A summary of the tattoo story:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/26/day-3-ted-cruz-mistress-crisis/

Black Swan

Trump continues to lead in the Fox News national polls overtime, although the most recent March poll falls close to the margin of error for Trump and Cruz:

Taken | Trump | Cruz | Kasich
16-19 Nov | 28 | 14 | 2
16-17 Dec | 39 | 18 | 2
4-7 Jan | 35 | 20 | 2
18-21 Jan | 34 | 20 | 4
15-17 Feb | 36 | 19 | 8
20-22 Mar | 41 | 38 | 17


It would appear that Trump will lead in most national polls going into the GOP convention, but polls are not votes, only delegates count, including 437 Republican "unpledged delegates" (i.e., similar to Democrat superdelegates) that are greatly influenced by the GOP, with a chance for a brokered convention.

"I think you'd have riots. I think you'd have riots," Trump said if he is not nominated by the Republicans in July. To what extent is he attempting to intimidate the GOP when saying this, while at the same time sending a message to his supporters advocating violence?

timmyntc

Black Swan wrote: »

"I think you'd have riots. I think you'd have riots," Trump said if he is not nominated by the Republicans in July. To what extent is he attempting to intimidate the GOP when saying this, while at the same time sending a message to his supporters advocating violence?

Enough with the bias. No harm but all your posts here have a particularly bad anti-Trump bias (A vote for Trump is a vote for torture! - how many times have we heard that on this thread). I think it's clear that Trump's statement shows his confidence in being the most popular candidate for the GOP nomination, and he theorizes there will be riots if the popular vote is not respected i.e. the GOP ignore the voter's choice and give the nomination to whoever they choose. Infact, they have been hinting that in the case of a brokered convention they might not nominate Cruz or Kasich either, and may field a new candidate entirely.

That there would be riots would be a consequence of democracy being suppressed, not some kind of threat from Trump that he would 'set' his minions upon the GOP. Get real.


Edit:
Some other quotes you seem to have left out from that article:

Earlier Wednesday, Cruz said party leaders getting behind a brokered convention would be disastrous.
"I think that would be an absolute disaster. I think the people would quite rightly revolt. The way to beat Donald Trump is at the ballot box," the Texas senator said on "New Day."

To what extent is Cruz attempting to intimidate the GOP when saying this, while at the same time sending a message to his supporters advocating violence?

Billy86

So basically, political leaders should not be responsible for the actions of their followers?

By the way, how is repeating what Trump himself an example of having a bias against him (re. torture)?

timmyntc

Billy86 wrote: »

So basically, political leaders should not be responsible for the actions of their followers?

By the way, how is repeating what Trump himself an example of having a bias against him (re. torture)?

So you feel that Sen. Bernie Sanders should take responsibility for his followers protesting and causing violence at a Trump rally in chicago?


Anyways, if the GOP try to undermine the democratic voting process, I would see it as entirely justified for registered GOP voters protesting the decision, seeing as their rights will have essentially been infringed. Whether Trump/Cruz/Kasich takes responsibility or not is a moot point, as the protest would be justified.

By the way, how is repeating what Trump himself an example of having a bias against him (re. torture)?

This is a thread for discussion of the US presidential race. When a point is brought up the first or even second time to discuss, thats fair enough. When the point has been discussed to death and neither side has anything more to say about it, but yet people still insist on posting it as a signature of sorts - well it's fairly obvious that its more of a smear attempt or a political point scoring mechanism than a topic for debate & discussion.

Billy86

timmyntc wrote: »

So you feel that Sen. Bernie Sanders should take responsibility for his followers protesting and causing violence at a Trump rally in chicago?

First, the protesters were a mix of people and not just Sanders supporters. Second, people have every right to protest, as and to who created the violence during the protests we have no idea. Third, what we do know is Sanders had protests at his own rallies - do you remember them turning into violence? And finally, what we also know is Trump told his supporters, on stage, "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, just knock the hell — I promise you, I'll pay the legal fees."

As for the convention, now THAT is going to be interesting. Still, if the rules were there beforehand then none were broken. I personally don't think they'd to it at all myself, but just a hunch.

This is a thread for discussion of the US presidential race. When a point is brought up the first or even second time to discuss, thats fair enough. When the point has been discussed to death and neither side has anything more to say about it, but yet people still insist on posting it as a signature of sorts - well it's fairly obvious that its more of a smear attempt or a political point scoring mechanism than a topic for debate & discussion.

People keep saying it because it happened, and because it is fact. That you don't like it doesn't change that. It was such an unbelievable and shocking thing to say so bluntly, and that's the kind of thing that got his fanbase to grow rapidly and to have so more media attention on him. They're the benefits - the drawbacks are everyone else calling that for what it is. If Trump and his fans want to be so brash and open about their opinions on everything, and since he does to be fair absolutely excel at PR, spin and marketing which he has used massively to his advantage and has courted attention obsessively through his career, it's more than a little rich to turn around and cry about 'media bullying'.

rsh118

To be fair, the Trump schlong has seen as much, if not more extra-marital action than Cruz is accused of. Trump would be playing a silly game to get that sort of thing published.

InTheTrees

timmyntc wrote: »

This is a thread for discussion of the US presidential race. When a point is brought up the first or even second time to discuss, thats fair enough. When the point has been discussed to death and neither side has anything more to say about it, but yet people still insist on posting it as a signature of sorts - well it's fairly obvious that its more of a smear attempt or a political point scoring mechanism than a topic for debate & discussion.

This is only the primaries, once the real Presidential campaign begins after the conventions all of this stuff is going to be gone over again much more seriously.

Trump will have to debate Clinton and Sanders and he'll have to explain exactly what his position on torture actually is.

Akrasia

Sanders has had a night of crushing victories in Washington Hawaii and Alaska. 72 to 27 in Washington should give him a nice delegate boost and help narrow the gap.

The race is not over yet

briany

Akrasia wrote: »

Sanders has had a night of crushing victories in Washington Hawaii and Alaska. 72 to 27 in Washington should give him a nice delegate boost and help narrow the gap.

The race is not over yet

Paddy Power still has Hillary as a shoe-in at 1/20, while Bernie remains a considerable outsider at 10/1. The race may not be over but it remains firmly in Hillary's hands by most estimates.

Don't get me wrong, it would be a terrific upset to see Bernie win the nomination, and that little smirk wiped off Hillary's face. Of all the major candidates remaining, he's the least obviously slimy and his ideals, while probably pie-in-the-sky, are much in the interest of the common voter.

It'll be hard though not impossible. I just don't want to see Sanders supporters getting their hopes up too much from existing too much within the Internet bubble and then their hopes dashed when that doesn't translate into IRL support and, most importantly, votes.

LuckyLloyd

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump continues to lead in the Fox News national polls overtime, although the most recent March poll falls close to the margin of error for Trump and Cruz:

Taken | Trump | Cruz | Kasich
16-19 Nov | 28 | 14 | 2
16-17 Dec | 39 | 18 | 2
4-7 Jan | 35 | 20 | 2
18-21 Jan | 34 | 20 | 4
15-17 Feb | 36 | 19 | 8
20-22 Mar | 41 | 38 | 17


It would appear that Trump will lead in most national polls going into the GOP convention, but polls are not votes, only delegates count, including 437 Republican "unpledged delegates" (i.e., similar to Democrat superdelegates) that are greatly influenced by the GOP, with a chance for a brokered convention.

"I think you'd have riots. I think you'd have riots," Trump said if he is not nominated by the Republicans in July. To what extent is he attempting to intimidate the GOP when saying this, while at the same time sending a message to his supporters advocating violence?

There WILL be riots if he's denied at this stage. He'll have won in popular vote % and delegates and will only be a touch short of 1237 (if he is short)

It's matter of fact to say that tbh.

Fr Tod Umptious

briany wrote: »

Paddy Power still has Hillary as a shoe-in at 1/20, while Bernie remains a considerable outsider at 10/1. The race may not be over but it remains firmly in Hillary's hands by most estimates.

Don't get me wrong, it would be a terrific upset to see Bernie win the nomination, and that little smirk wiped off Hillary's face. Of all the major candidates remaining, he's the least obviously slimy and his ideals, while probably pie-in-the-sky, are much in the interest of the common voter.

It'll be hard though not impossible. I just don't want to see Sanders supporters getting their hopes up too much from existing too much within the Internet bubble and then their hopes dashed when that doesn't translate into IRL support and, most importantly, votes.

Is Sanders winning yesterday with 70%+ of the vote more of an indication of Clinton's unpopularity or an indication of Sanders popularity ?

briany

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Is Sanders winning yesterday with 70%+ of the vote more of an indication of Clinton's unpopularity or an indication of Sanders popularity ?

I think in the states Sanders is winning it's because of his popularity, and the same for Hillary. If it were a case of the lesser of two evils, I think you'd be seeing a lot more apathy, but you keep seeing these reports of blockbuster voter turnout.

ECO_Mental

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There WILL be riots if he's denied at this stage. He'll have won in popular vote % and delegates and will only be a touch short of 1237 (if he is short)

It's matter of fact to say that tbh.

Yeah should be interesting convention alright especially when there is a petition going (20,000 votes already) to make it where you can open carry guns into the convention.

Trump supporters + lots of guns + lots of angry white folks + Ted Cruz supporters + Secret Service and then just sprinkle in one or two black protesters.....I CANNOT WAIT

BoJack Horseman

ECO_Mental wrote: »

lots of angry white folks

Angry?,,,,, fine.

White?.... a step too far... goddamn despicable white people, how dare they be white.

Brian?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Angry?,,,,, fine.

White?.... a step too far... goddamn despicable white people, how dare they be white.

Are you seriously looking that hard to be offended?

Brian?

timmyntc wrote: »

So you feel that Sen. Bernie Sanders should take responsibility for his followers protesting and causing violence at a Trump rally in chicago?


Anyways, if the GOP try to undermine the democratic voting process, I would see it as entirely justified for registered GOP voters protesting the decision, seeing as their rights will have essentially been infringed. Whether Trump/Cruz/Kasich takes responsibility or not is a moot point, as the protest would be justified.


This is a thread for discussion of the US presidential race. When a point is brought up the first or even second time to discuss, thats fair enough. When the point has been discussed to death and neither side has anything more to say about it, but yet people still insist on posting it as a signature of sorts - well it's fairly obvious that its more of a smear attempt or a political point scoring mechanism than a topic for debate & discussion.

Where's you faux outrage when posters constantly bring up Benghazi or emails on private servers?


Donald Trump supports the use of water boarding and "much further". Telling the truth is never bias or a smear. It's telling the truth, something Trump is largely unfamiliar with.










That last line is a biased smear for effect.

B_Wayne

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Is Sanders winning yesterday with 70%+ of the vote more of an indication of Clinton's unpopularity or an indication of Sanders popularity ?

He's extraordinarily affable, I have issues with his protectionist policies. However his overall goals are the most admirable in a long time. He has stood up for minorities throughout his life and is extraordinarily different to what we're used to in US politics.

I think he'd struggle to be an actual saviour of some kind, for example Obama's aims were modest and blocked at every corner, the GOP literally blocked everything at every turn.

Do I think Trump is better than Clinton? Nope, Trump is completely unpredictable, racist, torturous and an all round terrible human being to be honest. Just because he's blunt with ignorant views, does not make him a good candidate.

Suryavarman

Akrasia wrote: »

Sanders has had a night of crushing victories in Washington Hawaii and Alaska. 72 to 27 in Washington should give him a nice delegate boost and help narrow the gap.

The race is not over yet

Sanders has to win 67% of the remaining 2,049 delegates to win the nomination. 247 of those delegates are up for grabs in New York which is Hillary's homestate and where she is far ahead in the polls. Neighbouring states Connecticut and New Jersey have 55 and 126 delegates respectively. Although I haven't seen polls for those states it's not unreasonable to think that Clinton should win there. The next state to vote, Wisconsin, has 86 delegates up for grabs and a poll I've seen has Clinton in the lead. She also has massive leads in Maryland and Pennsylvania which have 95 and 189 delegates up for grabs. Then there's California with 475 delegates where a recent poll once again shows Clinton with a lead.

Let's be generous and assume Sanders can get half of those delegates. That would leave Hillary needing 84 of the remaining 876 delegates whereas Sanders would need 793. Even if we assume he could somehow manage to win all the super delegates pledged to Hillary he would still need 324 delegates.

He isn't going to get half the delegates in the states mentioned and he most definitely isn't going to get all the superdelegates pledged to Clinton. To any objective observer this race is over and has been for sometime. Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee and probably the next president. If pigs begin to fly and Sanders makes it to the White House then it doesn't really matter. Because very little of his dreadful policy platform will be passed.

The race is over. Sorry to have to break it you.

WarZ

Personally I despise Cruz, Trump, Clinton and in that order. Cruz has got to be the worst of the lot. As president he is a genuinely scary option, someone who has literally no moral compass and who is likely to actively attempt to bring about prophecy. Trump is definitely less than morally inclined as well but to be honest I think he's so concerned about what people think of him that he will actually do everything in his power to be seen as a good president, it may just keep him in line. Clinton is just as bad, she doesn't give a **** about the real Americans and is just a corporate and Military Industrial Complex stooge.

Bernie seems the best of the lot but hes far too idealistic and I doubt he will actually get much done as president. The one thing Obama could do was compromise and even vacate his ideals to get stuff done despite overwhelming and unprecedented obstacles.

I usually lean democrat but I personally would have voted for Jeb Bush. Followed by Kasich. Both seem like decent, presidential candidates. Jeb was tarnished by his association with George and his other downfall was not taking Trump seriously and his miscalculation of the republican electorate. I think Jeb believed the electorate would respect his decision not to get down and dirty with Trump but instead they saw it as him being meek and weak.

If Jeb ran as a democrat he would have got the nomination and probably the presidency in my opinion.

timmyntc

Billy86 wrote: »

First, the protesters were a mix of people and not just Sanders supporters. Second, people have every right to protest, as and to who created the violence during the protests we have no idea. Third, what we do know is Sanders had protests at his own rallies - do you remember them turning into violence? And finally, what we also know is Trump told his supporters, on stage, "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, just knock the hell — I promise you, I'll pay the legal fees."

As for the convention, now THAT is going to be interesting. Still, if the rules were there beforehand then none were broken. I personally don't think they'd to it at all myself, but just a hunch.


People keep saying it because it happened, and because it is fact. That you don't like it doesn't change that. It was such an unbelievable and shocking thing to say so bluntly, and that's the kind of thing that got his fanbase to grow rapidly and to have so more media attention on him. They're the benefits - the drawbacks are everyone else calling that for what it is. If Trump and his fans want to be so brash and open about their opinions on everything, and since he does to be fair absolutely excel at PR, spin and marketing which he has used massively to his advantage and has courted attention obsessively through his career, it's more than a little rich to turn around and cry about 'media bullying'.

Apologies for the delay.

The protestors largely identified as Sanders supporters, there were Bernie placards visible, and there were popular twitter pages (one such one was 'peopleforbernie' - a popular bernie sanders supporters group) praising the chicage protests and boasting about what they (sanders supporters) had accomplished by rioting, and IIRC they mentioned something about how 'we'll have to protest a lot more in days to come to get free education for all'.

As for people having every right to protest, yes, you're correct they do. However they do not have the right to infringe on another person's right to free speech. Shutting down rallies of your (potential) opponents is not a constitutional right, nor is it a right of any kind. Free speech goes both ways, it's not just free speech for what you want to hear.

"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them" - That's not exactly inciting violence against peaceful protestors, and last time i checked, throwing tomatoes at a rally is not a constitutional right like the right to free speech or peaceful assembly.

I don't believe I have voiced my opinion at all on Trump's torture statements. Frankly I find it reprehensible and I don't condone it, so it's nothing to do with me 'liking it or not'. I have issue with it being rehashed again and again when theres nothing to discuss or debate. And the bringing up of Hillary and Benghazi or Hillary and the private email server, or Hillary and the child rapist(?) that she got acquitted in court (god damn do i hate hillary), once its been discussed to death and there is no news, it again is nothing but an attempt to smear her 'good name'.
It would be like me bringing up something from Bernie's past and pushing it again and again, so much so that it kind of sticks in peoples heads and their opinion of him is changed by one bad fact, repeated often. And it does happen. However if this were to happen it wouldn't be nearly the same scale as Trump and torture or Hillary and her vast collection of skeletons in her walk in closet, but the principle is the same.

And when did I cry about media bullying? I gave out about rehashing old news to score political points, because it detracts from the discussion.

briany

WarZ wrote: »

Personally I despise Cruz, Trump, Clinton and in that order. Cruz has got to be the worst of the lot. As president he is a genuinely scary option, someone who has literally no moral compass and who is likely to actively attempt to bring about prophecy. Trump is definitely less than morally inclined as well but to be honest I think he's so concerned about what people think of him that he will actually do everything in his power to be seen as a good president, it may just keep him in line. Clinton is just as bad, she doesn't give a **** about the real Americans and is just a corporate and Military Industrial Complex stooge.

Bernie seems the best of the lot but hes far too idealistic and I doubt he will actually get much done as president. The one thing Obama could do was compromise and even vacate his ideals to get stuff done despite overwhelming and unprecedented obstacles.

I usually lean democrat but I personally would have voted for Jeb Bush. Followed by Kasich. Both seem like decent, presidential candidates. Jeb was tarnished by his association with George and his other downfall was not taking Trump seriously and his miscalculation of the republican electorate. I think Jeb believed the electorate would respect his decision not to get down and dirty with Trump but instead they saw it as him being meek and weak.

If Jeb ran as a democrat he would have got the nomination and probably the presidency in my opinion.

Trump's tactic is simple, yet brilliant by this comical lambasting of his political rivals. A lot of politicians spend their whole careers, their whole lives even, carefully cultivating a squeaky clean public image, trying as hard as they can to sweep any dirt under the carpet, and attempting to appear dignified and statesmanlike in public forums like the Republican debates. They're kind of hamstrung when it came to Trump because not responding to his jibes makes them look weak, but attempting to get too down and dirty really tarnishes the image they worked to create. As much as Trump as US president could lead to all sorts of disaster, I do enjoy watching the other candidates flounder in that robotic politician way when getting the brunt of Trump's mean-spirited comments. It's like their politico-software has encountered a fatal error. It's refreshing, if nothing else. Trump's foibles, on the other hand, are mainly out in the open. Well, there are really too many of them to hide even if he really wanted to, and he's tapping into a large section of the electorate who seem willing to look past all that in any case. The press should be calling him Teflon Trump.

Edit: Just googled "Teflon Trump". It would appear some of the press already are using it.