2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

B_Wayne

Amerika wrote: »

Trump is a dead man walking, so to speak. There is one factor, and probably the most important one, that will keep him from becoming POTUS... He has a 77% unfavorability rating amongst women. And there is no winning in this life when you piss off the womenfolk.

He's also a lying bigot, pretty glad that he stands no chance...

Amerika

B_Wayne wrote: »

He's also a lying bigot, pretty glad that he stands no chance...

He is right about a few things though, such as waterboarding works. If it didn't there would be no reason for our military to train some of our special troops on how to get through it.

And Hillary Clinton is every bit as much the liar as Trump

B_Wayne

Amerika wrote: »

He is right about a few things though, such as waterboarding works. If it didn't there would be no reason for our military to train some of our special troops on how to get through it.

And Hillary Clinton is every bit as much the liar as Trump

Nope, various investigations have found that no useful intelligence was gathered from enhanced interrogation. Just because it's used, doesn't mean it's not barbaric and useless..

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-torture-report-20141210-story.html

Amerika

B_Wayne wrote: »

Nope, various investigations have found that no useful intelligence was gathered from enhanced interrogation. Just because it's used, doesn't mean it's not barbaric and useless..

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-torture-report-20141210-story.html

Common sense would dictate that if the method were useless then there would be no reason to subject our military to the procedure and how not to give up vital information.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Common sense would dictate that if the method were useless then there would be no reason to subject our military to the procedure and how not to give up vital information.

You just said we train the military how to not give up information.

So its possible to defeat it. Obviously it doesnt work then right?

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

You just said we train the military how to not give up information.

So its possible to defeat it. Obviously it doesnt work then right?

That makes no sense.

Manach

My understanding, reading a book on US Militry law, is that the use of a variety of techniques to pressurise a non cooperating subject is allowed. These are not validated by international norms.

So to level criticism on Trump on this matter also would need to include establishment candidates from both parties, excepting Saunders.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amerika wrote: »

Common sense would dictate that if the method were useless then there would be no reason to subject our military to the procedure and how not to give up vital information.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/waterboarding-and-enhanced-interrogation-shown-to-be-ineffective-7685174.html

This says:
The Democrats pressed on, however, and it will still be deemed significant because until now no one, including the CIA, has attempted any such systematic analysis of whether the techniques worked or not.

How can Trump know it works? Or are the definitions of basic English words being changed here as well?

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Common sense would dictate that if the method were useless then there would be no reason to subject our military to the procedure and how not to give up vital information.

Waterboarding and other forms of torture explicitly banned by international law are a great way at getting people to tell you things, any things. Doesn't matter if it's the truth, or if they even know what the truth is, or what you are talking about. They'll just say whatever to get you to stop.

What's been shown to be more effective is tricking them into thinking you're their friend. That's not achieved by torture.

Billy86

Manach wrote: »

My understanding, reading a book on US Militry law, is that the use of a variety of techniques to pressurise a non cooperating subject is allowed. These are not validated by international norms.

So to level criticism on Trump on this matter also would need to include establishment candidates from both parties, excepting Saunders.

It absolutely would, barring the fact that (as best I know) Trump is the only one talking about torturing peoples families.

K-9

B_Wayne wrote: »

He's also a lying bigot, pretty glad that he stands no chance...

Mod:

Can we up the standard a bit please. We don't want to be handing out cards and bans but repeated posts like the above doesn't give us much choice.

Amazingfun

First of THREE Trump rallys today starting now

rsh118

Billy86 wrote: »

It absolutely would, barring the fact that (as best I know) Trump is the only one talking about torturing peoples families.

Pfft, classic MSM SJW Vick right here making up lies to harm Trump.

I think you'll find he is actually talking about murdering them. In cold blood. Whether they have anything to do with their children's actions at all... Hmmmmmm

briany

Amerika wrote: »

Trump is a dead man walking, so to speak. There is one factor, and probably the most important one, that will keep him from becoming POTUS... He has a 77% unfavorability rating amongst women. And there is no winning in this life when you piss off the womenfolk.

Well there's obviously some winning in this life when you piss off the women because the man's romping home to victory in the Republican primary. I don't think anyone in modern times has been as un-PC as Trump and been so successful. He's talking trash about women, Mexicans and Muslims (three voting blocs to court in a campaign), fairly openly and he's still doing well. His campaign should be dead in the water 6 months ago, never mind now or in the GE. Therefore I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything about what will happen. He is looking to be the protest candidate of the election and there's an anti-establishment sentiment brewing on both sides of the aisle among the common American voters, so there will be different forces at play in the general beyond, "Women don't like Trump. He's done.".

BoJack Horseman

Have any Sanders supporter read www.feelthebern.org ?

It seems to be a Sanders supporter site, but it has more detail on policy than the rather sparse main Sanders website.

Can its content be considered legit?

(fun fact. feelthebern.com is a pornhub redirect!)

Brian?

briany wrote: »

Well there's obviously some winning in this life when you piss off the women because the man's romping home to victory in the Republican primary. I don't think anyone in modern times has been as un-PC as Trump and been so successful. He's talking trash about women, Mexicans and Muslims (three voting blocs to court in a campaign), fairly openly and he's still doing well. His campaign should be dead in the water 6 months ago, never mind now or in the GE. Therefore I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything about what will happen. He is looking to be the protest candidate of the election and there's an anti-establishment sentiment brewing on both sides of the aisle among the common American voters, so there will be different forces at play in the general beyond, "Women don't like Trump. He's done.".

Do the numbers though. He's winning primaries with less than 50% of the GOP vote. So at a guess, about 15-20% of voters have chosen Trump as their next president, may actually be lower than that.

In the general, a lot more GOP voters will vote Trump as they'd vote for anyone the GOP nominate. So this gets him into the mid 30s at a guess. But then he's alienated enough women that that number may be ambitious with only GOP voters.

So who gets him over the winning line? Latinos - no, female swing voters - no, blacks - no. White male sing voters are what he's banking on, didn't work for Romney or McCain and they had a higher percentage of support from women.

In all honesty, where's his 51% coming from? Or at best 49% and some favourable electoral college results.

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump is manipulating the media expertly to draw as much attention as possible to himself by frequently saying "outrageous" and "sensationalist" things about Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks, "torture works," advocating violence against protesters, punishing women for having abortions, etc., etc., in agreement with his press manipulation strategy stated on page 56 of his 1987 book The Art of the Deal (e.g., "outrageous" and "sensationalist" are Trump's words). The "Trump is hated by the media" is an attempt to make Trump appear as the victim, and has been stated so often by him and his supporters that it's already becoming very cliché. In reality BOTH Trump and media are benefiting from each other, with Trump getting daily headlines to keep his name before the public, and the media benefiting by increased ratings and ROI driven by his "outrageous" and "sensationalist" statements. In summary, from a business standpoint TRUMP IS LOVED BY THE MEDIA, and from a "Kingfish" Huey Long political visibility standpoint TRUMP LOVES THE MEDIA.

The media is focusing on all the sensational remarks he makes because it works. It gets people talking. Fox News does not like Trump yet many of their viewers agree with most of his views. The liberal channels talk to Trump because he has the money and can buy media time. Many Republican nominees would love to have the attention Trump gets.

Trump is like Lincoln in an age where we have 21st century media. Twitter, Facebook in your face. All of his views are before the world. As for Clinton, Cruz they are uninteresting dull actors on this stage. They don't look like they will change how Washington is governed. Cruz is worshipped by the GOP. Clinton is unpopular everywhere except where it matters not even Pres Obama has given her his blessing.

Lets face it Trump reflects a large number of Americans views and believe otherwise is to ignore about 35% of the electorate. A proportion that votes consecutively. Obama voters gave up after he got in the GOP retook Congress. Obama's voters are not exclusively Democratic voters. A lot are floating voters. All lot would vote for a third party candidate like Trump.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Lets face it Trump reflects a large number of Americans views and believe otherwise is to ignore about 35% of the electorate.

There is a possibility that Trump will not reach the minimum 1,237 delegates by convention time, or that delegates currently endorsing him will switch at the convention, which may happen in accordance with various complex rules. If Trump fails to reach the minimum, or some of his delegates switch at convention, causing him to fall below the minimum, there will probably be a brokered convention, with no guarantees that Trump gets the GOP nomination no matter where the polls place Trump; i.e., polls are not GOP delegates, or official votes, only a sampling of respondent opinions by polling organisations, along with polling error limitations.

Trump is not a third party candidate today as he is running for the Republican nomination. He could become one if he is not nominated by the GOP, and breaks his vow to support whomever the GOP nominates 18-21 July 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio. If he does become a third party candidate like another billionaire businessman Ross Perot did in 1992, odds are similar election results may occur, ironically, with yet another Clinton winning the election with a split-Republican electorate (e.g., Bill Clinton 1992; Hillary Clinton 2016).

K-9

briany wrote: »

Well there's obviously some winning in this life when you piss off the women because the man's romping home to victory in the Republican primary. I don't think anyone in modern times has been as un-PC as Trump and been so successful. He's talking trash about women, Mexicans and Muslims (three voting blocs to court in a campaign), fairly openly and he's still doing well. His campaign should be dead in the water 6 months ago, never mind now or in the GE. Therefore I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything about what will happen. He is looking to be the protest candidate of the election and there's an anti-establishment sentiment brewing on both sides of the aisle among the common American voters, so there will be different forces at play in the general beyond, "Women don't like Trump. He's done.".

Well for me, it would make a fascinating Presidential election, Clinton, who is not liked by many but moreso men against Trump, not liked by a lot of people and who is even more gender divisive.

Add in Cruz as the only Republican alternative and Bernie is the only one who comes out of this well, but being realistic isn't a realistic contender.

A plague on all their houses then!

K-9

Brian? wrote: »

Do the numbers though. He's winning primaries with less than 50% of the GOP vote. So at a guess, about 15-20% of voters have chosen Trump as their next president, may actually be lower than that.

In the general, a lot more GOP voters will vote Trump as they'd vote for anyone the GOP nominate. So this gets him into the mid 30s at a guess. But then he's alienated enough women that that number may be ambitious with only GOP voters.

So who gets him over the winning line? Latinos - no, female swing voters - no, blacks - no. White male sing voters are what he's banking on, didn't work for Romney or McCain and they had a higher percentage of support from women.

In all honesty, where's his 51% coming from? Or at best 49% and some favourable electoral college results.

Yep, looking at the demographics Trump will struggle in November.

His supporters can say he attracts Latino, African American and female support, of course he does, but it's maybe 20-30% of them, at best.

The numbers don't add up.

It's like Bernie actually wins the 18-29 years support from Latinos and African Americans. That's great and all but it doesn't mean he'll win the primaries.

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The media is focusing on all the sensational remarks he makes because it works. It gets people talking. Fox News does not like Trump yet many of their viewers agree with most of his views. The liberal channels talk to Trump because he has the money and can buy media time. Many Republican nominees would love to have the attention Trump gets.

Trump is like Lincoln in an age where we have 21st century media. Twitter, Facebook in your face. All of his views are before the world. As for Clinton, Cruz they are uninteresting dull actors on this stage. They don't look like they will change how Washington is governed. Cruz is worshipped by the GOP. Clinton is unpopular everywhere except where it matters not even Pres Obama has given her his blessing.

Lets face it Trump reflects a large number of Americans views and believe otherwise is to ignore about 35% of the electorate. A proportion that votes consecutively. Obama voters gave up after he got in the GOP retook Congress. Obama's voters are not exclusively Democratic voters. A lot are floating voters. All lot would vote for a third party candidate like Trump.

Trump is winning the social media election, no doubt, though Sanders isn't far behind. Trump is the leading PR and spin campaign.

Social media is bipartisan. Trump has won what he can from it. Everybody has made their mind up on Twitter and Facebook at this stage, there aren't many more votes left in it. At this stage Sanders and Trump are preaching to the converted. Just because there are an increasingly vociferous bunch for Sanders and Trump, isn't going to mean louder votes! You don't get 2 votes for shouting loudly.

This has been proven by research, when it comes to politics Twitter is very bipartisan, so all those retweets are just getting shared among the faithful. Independents aren't going to be won over by loud noises.

johnnyskeleton

Amazingfun wrote: »

First of THREE Trump rallys today starting now

Mod note:

As per the charter, please dont post videos without relaying their content. Some people cant watch videos due to mobile devices etc. But its also not acceptable to require people to watch a video and try to distill your point from it.

BoJack Horseman

A curious thing I've noticed wrt Sanders and his foreign/military policy.

Firstly, but not surprisingly, he shares Trumps ambivalence with regard to NATO... neither desiring the cost of defending Europe & both seeing it as a bygone throwback and antagonistic toward Russia.

What is unusual is China.

Seemingly Bernie is keen to place (limited) sanctions on countries cooperating with China wrt regard to defence exports.

From what I can tell, the vast bulk of China's imported defence tech is from Russia, primarily propulsion systems for it's air force & navy.
Following Russia, comes Ukraine (similar systems) an France.

So, Further sanctions on Russia, meanwhile he supports the deployment of US brigade combat teams to Eastern Europe to counter Russia in the east.... seemingly at odds with his desire to divulge the US's current responsibilities on defending Europe.

But back to China.....
While Bernie seems in favour of impeding Chinese defence procurement, he also (bafflingly) expects to work with China to 'lean on' North Korea to get them to comply with agreements on their nuclear weapons programme.

Much contradictions & very naive.
Of the 4 main candidates on both sides of the aisle, Sanders seems the to have the most confused foreign policy.


http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Foreign_Policy.htm
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-china/

InTheTrees

There's a story brewing over the old "DC Madam" case.

She ran an escort service in Washington DC in the 90's, and it was a huge story at the time when she was arrested. After she was tried and convicted the judge in the case sealed the court records to keep the client list under wraps. The customers werent on trial after all.

The Madam committed suicide in 2006.

Last week the lawyers for the defense in the case filed a motion with the court to unseal the client list (which they still have) citing the fact that the information could have relevance to the Presidential Election. The lawyer in charge has threatened to reveal the records anyway.

“The delay by this court and resolution of this application in hindsight will intentionally favor one presidential candidate over others by protecting that candidate from the release of the D.C. madam phone records, which the attorney maintains are relevant to this election cycle.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/years-later-the-dc-madam-scandal-relevant-once-more

Black Swan

The Wisconsin primary is heating up for both party's presidential candidates. Clinton worries that Sanders may take the state, as does Trump worry that Cruz may, both concerned about public impressions of lost campaign momentum (be they real or imaginary). Trump took a beating last week after his women should be punished for abortion along with his battery charged campaign manager, so a Wisconsin win for him would reassure his supporters that those things didn't matter.

Most recent (viewed at this moment) Wisconsin polls by CBS News, Fox Business, Loras College, PPP, and Marquette show Cruz ahead of Trump. These same 5 polling organisations show Sanders leading Clinton, except for one (Loras).

Cruz, Trump, Clinton, and Sanders are pushing hard to win Wisconsin. If Clinton or Trump were to defy these recent polls and win Wisconsin, that would make a statement.

K-9

I'd read about the DC Madam thing a while ago. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

Rjd2

K-9 wrote: »

Trump is winning the social media election, no doubt, though Sanders isn't far behind. Trump is the leading PR and spin campaign.

Social media is bipartisan. Trump has won what he can from it. Everybody has made their mind up on Twitter and Facebook at this stage, there aren't many more votes left in it. At this stage Sanders and Trump are preaching to the converted. Just because there are an increasingly vociferous bunch for Sanders and Trump, isn't going to mean louder votes! You don't get 2 votes for shouting loudly.

This has been proven by research, when it comes to politics Twitter is very bipartisan, so all those retweets are just getting shared among the faithful. Independents aren't going to be won over by loud noises.

Its a fair point, if you were in a coma for the last 12 months, and dipped into social media, you'd wonder why the bookies have got Clinton instead of Sanders such an overwhelming favorite for the dem nomination.

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

The Wisconsin primary is heating up for both party's presidential candidates. Clinton worries that Sanders may take the state, as does Trump worry that Cruz may, both concerned about public impressions of lost campaign momentum (be they real or imaginary). Trump took a beating last week after his women should be punished for abortion along with his battery charged campaign manager, so a Wisconsin win for him would reassure his supporters that those things didn't matter.

Most recent (viewed at this moment) Wisconsin polls by CBS News, Fox Business, Loras College, PPP, and Marquette show Cruz ahead of Trump. These same 5 polling organisations show Sanders leading Clinton, except for one (Loras).

Cruz, Trump, Clinton, and Sanders are pushing hard to win Wisconsin. If Clinton or Trump were to defy these recent polls and win Wisconsin, that would make a statement.

The campaign manager thing is a non event, the issue is Trump dipping his toe in evangelical waters, whoever advised him to do it, stupid decision, stupid statements, he left himself room to retreat as he has, but it was a bad miscalculation that has clearly lingered given we are still talking about it.

Akrasia

Remember the Nevada Caucus where Hillary Beat Bernie by 5 points back in February?

Well, it turns out that due to the wacky world of caucuses, delegates and conventions, Bernie might actually end up winning the state.

The Caucuses are held to choose delegates to go to the county conventions who in turn vote for delegates to go to the State convention in May. The state convention is where the number of delegates who will go to the national convention is chosen.

But if the local delegates chosen in the caucuses don't bother going to their county convention to support their candidate, then that vote doesn't get counted. It turns out that Sanders won the county conventions by 55% to 45%

It seems that a large number of Hillary's delegates never turned up at the county convention and Bernie might now have more delegates from Nevada than Hillary at the National convention in July

Hillary was thought to have had 20 delegates to Sanders' 15 from Nevada, it might shift by 5 to 8 delegates between them, so it's not a massive game changer, but it does indicate the level of enthusiasm for Hillary on the ground if she can't get her own delegates to go to actually vote for her.

TheDoctor

Hilary and Nevada just doesn't seem to work.

Throwback to 2008 she again won the state on the popular vote but the way the delegates were split by county Obama took more to the convention.

Bizarre isnt the word for what happened yesterday in Nevada, culminating in the Clinton camp calling the cops to arrest the the chair of the credentials committee.

However from watching videos of the event it simply seems Sanders delegates showed up, whereas Clintons didnt!