2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

JPNelsforearm

Trump on the North Carolina bathroom brouhaha

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/

"Leave it the way it was, no problems before they brought in the new law... Trump towers or any of his buildings have no such policy....[p]eople should use whatever bathroom they feel comfortable", stance puts him at odds with religious right/evangelical side of the Republicans.

I think he should have stayed out of it, its really a no win issue for him, anyone who cares on the left wont vote for him anyway, they are too far gone down the PC rabbithole to care, and he is just further straining his already tenuous relationship with the religious loons on the right, who might have voted for him.

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Trump on the North Carolina bathroom brouhaha

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/

"Leave it the way it was, no problems before they brought in the new law... Trump towers or any of his buildings have no such policy....[p]eople should use whatever bathroom they feel comfortable", stance puts him at odds with religious right/evangelical side of the Republicans.

I think he should have stayed out of it, its really a no win issue for him, anyone who cares on the left wont vote for him anyway, they are too far gone down the PC rabbithole to care, and he is just further straining his already tenuous relationship with the religious loons on the right, who might have voted for him.

While I agree with you, reminds me of guys not looking down at urinals (are we that insecure?), that's the demographic he appealed to from the start.

Got to take it warts and all!

KingBrian2

Anyone know what Trump's position on the drug war is. Favour, against or indifferent. He seems to be against the current policy of fighting against the drug lords.

JPNelsforearm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Anyone know what Trump's position on the drug war is. Favour, against or indifferent. He seems to be against the current policy of fighting against the drug lords.

He has mentioned shutting down trafficking and taking away drug lords profits through legalisation/ending the war on drugs, in the past. His present stance is in favour of the states rights position as regards legalisation afaik.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It becomes ever clearer that a strong preference ruins the ability of observers to comment rationally about an electoral process. The modern media in its diversity and ever growing lack of rigour supports this. If you really want / hope for something to happen you can find a bubble of the Internet that will fill you with 'content' arguing the existence of a path to same. They'll also provide plenty of 'it's not your preference's fault' conspiritarding about how your side is being cheated by the man.

Plenty of examples on this thread, and recently in Politics Cafe during the run up to the Irish General election.

Sanders supporters on the wide scale being a good example, Trump supporters being a good example of hearing what they want to hear.

Akrasia

A Clinton super PAC is spending a million dollars to pay people to post nice things about her on the internet.

'Correct the record' has been shilling for Hillary since May 2015

I'm sure that these shills make it clear that they're being paid to post their comments online while they're doing so (not)

Meanwhile there are false rumors that Sanders' campaign is doing the same thing

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/23/bernie-sanders-campaign-we-don-t-pay-for-comments-thank-you.html

JPNelsforearm

Akrasia wrote: »

A Clinton super PAC is spending a million dollars to pay people to post nice things about her on the internet.

'Correct the record' has been shilling for Hillary since May 2015

I'm sure that these shills make it clear that they're being paid to post their comments online while they're doing so (not)

Meanwhile there are false rumors that Sanders' campaign is doing the same thing

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/23/bernie-sanders-campaign-we-don-t-pay-for-comments-thank-you.html

Well Sanders backers(eg Soros funded "Move-On") have been paying for protesters and leftist rent a mobs to appear in person at various protests, I dont doubt they would do the same for online content.

20Cent

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well Sanders backers(eg Soros funded "Move-On") have been paying for protesters and leftist rent a mobs to appear in person at various protests, I dont doubt they would do the same for online content.

Any proof for this?

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well Sanders backers(eg Soros funded "Move-On") have been paying for protesters and leftist rent a mobs to appear in person at various protests, I dont doubt they would do the same for online content.

Do you have an unbiased, credible source for this comment? Link?

As many of Sanders rallies are held on college and university campuses where he is extraordinarily popular, it would not be necessary for him to spend a dime to get a grand turnout. He came to our university and filled the stadium with enthusiastic students. The Sanders demographics tends to be disproportionately younger than Hillary Clinton's or Donald Trump's, but unfortunately for Sanders, (historically) college and university students tend to be very vocal politically, but underrepresented at the elections.

Tomk1

I was against Trump, most due to neg-media attention of the PC mouthpieces.
I like Sanders but is more for internal American social affairs senator not presidential.
Think Trump could be like a rebel JFK, a real showman/person.
N.Korea/Cuba JFK had his button on the bomb.
For me Trump & luv to see CNN licking his shoes.

Anyone think Ted Cruz is like "Count von Count" from Sesame street.

Akrasia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well Sanders backers(eg Soros funded "Move-On") have been paying for protesters and leftist rent a mobs to appear in person at various protests, I dont doubt they would do the same for online content.

Evidence please

KingBrian2

Tomk1 wrote: »

I was against Trump, most due to neg-media attention of the PC mouthpieces.
I like Sanders but is more for internal American social affairs senator not presidential.
Think Trump could be like a rebel JFK, a real showman/person.
N.Korea/Cuba JFK had his button on the bomb.
For me Trump & luv to see CNN licking his shoes.

Anyone think Ted Cruz is like "Count von Count" from Sesame street.

In America you are always guaranteed to receive high turn out from older voters the same applies here in Ireland. They are the most reliant voters to turn to so having a message for this audience is what Trump can and does do. It will be fascinating to see if he can win over the young vote because so far he equals Hillary on that front but can't compete with Sanders who enjoys very high support of people who probably can't remember a president before Bill Clinton.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

In America you are always guaranteed to receive high turn out from older voters the same applies here in Ireland. They are the most reliant voters to turn to so having a message for this audience is what Trump can and does do. It will be fascinating to see if he can win over the young vote because so far he equals Hillary on that front but can't compete with Sanders who enjoys very high support of people who probably can't remember a president before Bill Clinton.

Methinks that neither Trump or Clinton will win over the young vote 8 November 2016, especially the highly educated college and university demographic. They will probably stay home. It's ironic that the oldest running 2016 candidate Sanders is drawing the youngest crowd.

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

Trump doesn't have any serious plans to tackle illegal immigration, his plan is to cut down on the routes people can get in legally.

Holy moly what a statement.

You could end illegal immigration simply by enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

He wants to enforce E-verify so that illegals can't work. Presumably fire the people in the IRS who have knowingly allowed illegals to steal social security numbers to claim benefits and replace them with people who are serious about stopping immigrant welfare fraud. Those two acts alone would eliminate a lot of their reasons for being here and they'd go home of their own volition. Those who choose to stay would either be dependent on legal residents in which case no worries, or have a career in crime, in which case mandating that cops turn over criminals aliens to ICE officials and have them deported is an easy step to clearing out the rest.

Keep in mind that under Obama 2.5 million people were deported without him even trying and without anyone so much as batting an eye. That's just from following the laws that are currently on the books. The idea that you can't deport 11 million is absurd.

walshyn93

Akrasia wrote: »

Evidence please

If you can't keep up with the latest, please use Google to catch up.

walshyn93

Akrasia wrote: »

Democrats need to appeal to minorities because that's their traditional base, about 40% of democrat voters are from 'minority' groups. Republicans don't care about minorities because only 11% of their voters are 'minorities'

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

The problem is that in the general election, all the independents come into play and about 30% of 'independent' voters are 'minorities' of which the majority (16%) are Hispanics and this vote can be enough to swing an election

Trump is already hugely unpopular amongst women and liberals, and minorities, and when you add those people together, it's way more than 50% of the population

He needs broader support to win a general election, or else he needs a competitor who's even less popular than he is, or some other way of splitting the vote so that his base can win a plurality (third party candidacies)

You literally didn't read what I said at all and you should have because what I said was right.

Romney would have won if he had got 5% more of the white vote. Trump can get 5% more of the white vote and retain or even surpass Mitt's piss poor performance with minorities.

Perhaps you missed the bit in 2012 when the Republicans decided to change their appeal to try and appeal to Hispanic voters to win in 2016. They shat themselves when Trump came along and ruined it, but Trump's maths are better. Republicans expand the Hispanic vote, they still lose. Trump expands the white vote, he wins.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Do you have an unbiased, credible source for this comment? Link?

As many of Sanders rallies are held on college and university campuses where he is extraordinarily popular, it would not be necessary for him to spend a dime to get a grand turnout. He came to our university and filled the stadium with enthusiastic students. The Sanders demographics tends to be disproportionately younger than Hillary Clinton's or Donald Trump's, but unfortunately for Sanders, (historically) college and university students tend to be very vocal politically, but underrepresented at the elections.

He clearly said protests, not rallies.

Fr Tod Umptious

walshyn93 wrote: »

If you can't keep up with the latest, please use Google to catch up.

Id love to believe that these rent a mobs are backed by Sanders supporter money but evidence would be nice.
Telling someone to go a Google it is as much as admitting that you don't have any evidence yourself.

Akrasia

walshyn93 wrote: »

If you can't keep up with the latest, please use Google to catch up.

So the source for that specific claim about Sanders paying people to attend his rallies is 'the internet'

Akrasia

walshyn93 wrote: »

You literally didn't read what I said at all and you should have because what I said was right.

Romney would have won if he had got 5% more of the white vote. Trump can get 5% more of the white vote and retain or even surpass Mitt's piss poor performance with minorities.

Perhaps you missed the bit in 2012 when the Republicans decided to change their appeal to try and appeal to Hispanic voters to win in 2016. They shat themselves when Trump came along and ruined it, but Trump's maths are better. Republicans expand the Hispanic vote, they still lose. Trump expands the white vote, he wins.

your argument is completely spurious.

You're just assuming that Trump will get all the votes that Romney and then saying he an win an additional 5% of white voters....

Trump polls horribly with women voters. Only 26% of women voters view Trump positively, and if he is against hillary, she will have a natural advantage of women voting for the first ever female U.S. president.

Relying on white voters is a strategy that might work, but not if you automatically alienate 50% by being a shameless misogynist running against a female candidate.


Hillary's campaign has successfully painted Sanders as a sexist even though he blatantly supports equal rights for women. They'll have a field day with Trump in the GE.

Akrasia

walshyn93 wrote: »

He clearly said protests, not rallies.

Where is the evidence that move-on has paid people to attend protests in support of Sanders?

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

If you can't keep up with the latest, please use Google to catch up.

Mod:

It won't take much time to find a link and post it here then, it's a simple enough request.

walshyn93

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Id love to believe that these rent a mobs are backed by Sanders supporter money but evidence would be nice.
Telling someone to go a Google it is as much as admitting that you don't have any evidence yourself.

I never made the claim, but I'll tell you what I think.

MoveOn.org endorsed Sanders with 78% support. George Soros funds MoveOn.org which allegedly posted ads on craigslist for protesters offering 15 dollars an hour to protesters. George Soros himself wants Hillary to win which may explain the presence of Bernie signs in the hands of protesters.

The question is, were the craigslists ads genuine or not? Only the people who made them and responded to them know that for sure. Looking at those protesters a lot of them were clearly not amateurs. Whether they responded to the ads or are just paid activists from within MoveOn I don't know.

Anyway, I'm not sure why people get so hung up on whether protesters are paid or not. I'm more afraid of people who genuinely believe in a cause then people who just want a quick buck. Hitler was more of a menace than Mussolini simply because Mussolini was a hypocrite. Today progressives are controlling colleges, political parties, the media, they're interfering in science, art and they're virulently anti-free speech, anti-liberal. It's only a matter of time until they control police departments and the military.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

It won't take much time to find a link and post it here then, it's a simple enough request.

I didn't make the original claim anyway.

walshyn93

Akrasia wrote: »

your argument is completely spurious.

You're just assuming that Trump will get all the votes that Romney and then saying he an win an additional 5% of white voters....

Trump polls horribly with women voters. Only 26% of women voters view Trump positively, and if he is against hillary, she will have a natural advantage of women voting for the first ever female U.S. president.

Relying on white voters is a strategy that might work, but not if you automatically alienate 50% by being a shameless misogynist running against a female candidate.


Hillary's campaign has successfully painted Sanders as a sexist even though he blatantly supports equal rights for women. They'll have a field day with Trump in the GE.

Hillary successfully painted Sanders as a sexist because Democratic women are mostly young unmarried women. Republicans win with married women who are older and smarter and can see through the smears a lot better. Trump doesn't need to win over Democratic women he only needs to retain support from married women, which he has done so far.

Akrasia

walshyn93 wrote: »

I never made the claim, but I'll tell you what I think.

MoveOn.org endorsed Sanders with 78% support. George Soros funds MoveOn.org which allegedly posted ads on craigslist for protesters offering 15 dollars an hour to protesters. George Soros himself wants Hillary to win which may explain the presence of Bernie signs in the hands of protesters.

The question is, were the craigslists ads genuine or not? Only the people who made them and responded to them know that for sure. Looking at those protesters a lot of them were clearly not amateurs. Whether they responded to the ads or are just paid activists from within MoveOn I don't know.

Anyway, I'm not sure why people get so hung up on whether protesters are paid or not. I'm more afraid of people who genuinely believe in a cause then people who just want a quick buck. Hitler was more of a menace than Mussolini simply because Mussolini was a hypocrite. Today progressives are controlling colleges, political parties, the media, they're interfering in science, art and they're virulently anti-free speech, anti-liberal. It's only a matter of time until they control police departments and the military.

http://www.snopes.com/craigslist-ad-trump-rally/

Snopes investigated this claim and found it unproven.

Hillary does have a superpac who are spending at least a million dollars for people to post on social media sites in support of Hillary

Even if the craigslist thing was true, protests against Trump are nothing to do with Sanders, he doesn't organise them, and he doesn't benefit from them in his primary campaign against Clinton. Just because George Soros may or may not be hiring rentacrowd protestors has absolutely nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.

On the other hand, the superpac who are paying for Clinton's campaign have a strong history of coordinating with the Clintons for PR purposes.

johnnyskeleton

walshyn93 wrote: »

I didn't make the original claim anyway.

Mod Note:

That's not really relevant. If you don't have anything to add other than to suggest someone google current events, please don't post here in future.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

Hillary successfully painted Sanders as a sexist because Democratic women are mostly young unmarried women.

Are 7 out of 10 women that view Trump as unfavourable in a national tracking poll from July to March "mostly young unmarried women?" Polls describe "Trump has a 70% unfavorable and 23% favorable image among women," and the unfavorable tracking poll has been increasing from 58% July 2015 to 70% unfavorable March 2016. Of all 5 candidates running for the Democratic or Republican nominations Trump has been the most unfavorable among American women.

walshyn93 wrote: »

Republicans win with married women who are older and smarter...

"Women who are... smarter?" Review "How Donald Trump Answers A Question" using a simple 4th grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid readability test), the lowest of all candidates running for president, Sanders being at the 10th grade level (highest of the 5 remaining candidates).

Certainly having a college/university degree does not guarantee that someone will be smarter, but "The single best predictor of Trump support in the GOP primary is the absence of a college degree."

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Anyway, I'm not sure why people get so hung up on whether protesters are paid or not.

Because its nonsense thats why.

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

Do you have an unbiased, credible source for this comment? Link?

As many of Sanders rallies are held on college and university campuses where he is extraordinarily popular, it would not be necessary for him to spend a dime to get a grand turnout. He came to our university and filled the stadium with enthusiastic students. The Sanders demographics tends to be disproportionately younger than Hillary Clinton's or Donald Trump's, but unfortunately for Sanders, (historically) college and university students tend to be very vocal politically, but underrepresented at the elections.

Akrasia wrote: »

Evidence please

"We’ve been ramping up our efforts for months — from the ‘We Are Better Than This’ ad we helped organize in The New York Times in December, to our collective advocacy for refugees under attack from the GOP, to the support we provided students in Chicago last night by printing signs and a banner and recruiting MoveOn.org members to join their peaceful protest. We need to double-down in the face of direct attacks on our community.”
“So here’s the plan: We’ll support MoveOn.org members to call out and nonviolently protest Trump’s racist, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic, and violent behavior — and show the world that America rejects Trump’s hate,” the email read. “And to keep it going, we’re counting on you to donate whatever you can to cover the costs of everything involved — the organizers, signs, online recruitment ads, training, and more.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/13/moveonorg-raising-funds-from-trump-protests-warns-/