2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Congress is controlled by the republicans.

Republicans are complicit. They're doing it for the cheap labour for their donors while Democrats are doing it for the votes.

PopePalpatine

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's a lot of black Americans that would have something to say about that particular statement.

Go back 50-80 years and it'd be WASPs saying that it was themselves (and not them blasted "Micks"/"WOPs") that built the USA. :rolleyes:

walshyn93

First Up wrote: »

Its Neather actually and he clarified and contradicted that years ago. Of course that doesn't stop it being re-hashed and mis-represented by right wing nutters in the UK - or on US TV.

He clarified his statements but interestingly didn't contradict them. IN fact he reaffirmed them as I will demonstrate.

Let's let his words speak for themselves, because this is what the left always does when they're caught red handed, they ridicule the notion until it becomes a running gag and dismiss it as a fringe conspiracy theory, then when people come back to it later on it becomes easier to say "that story has been discredited" even though it has not. We see the same with Benghazi in the US.

In October 2009 Neather wrote an article for the London Evening Standard entitled "Don't listen to the whingers - London needs immigrants". In this piece he argued that immigration to Britain has a positive effect, but politicians have done a poor job of expressing this. "What's missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from", he said; "the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration."
"I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls... That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit", continued Neather. "The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy... Eventually published in January 2001, [it] focused heavily on the labour market case."
"But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural", he went on to write. "I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far. Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing."
He concluded that "there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote. This shone through even in the published report: the 'social outcomes' it talks about are solely those for immigrants."

Here's his response to the outrage:

Neather objected to this exaggeration of his comments. "Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech", he clarified in a follow-up published three days after his original article. "The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when - hard as it is to imagine now - the booming economy was running up against skills shortages. But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it - boosting diversity and undermining the Right's opposition to multiculturalism."
"Somehow this has become distorted by excitable Right-wing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural", he said. "There was no plot. I've worked closely with [Barbara] Roche and Jack Straw and they are both decent, honourable people whom I respect (not something I'd say for many politicians)."
"The Right see plots everywhere and will hyperventilate at the drop of a chapati", he concluded. "The Left, however, will immediately accuse anyone who raises immigration as an issue as 'playing the race card' - as the Government has on several occasions over the past decade. Both sides need to grow up."

So he didn't actually refute anything he said in the original article, he merely says "there was no plot" and "it wasn't even the primary purpose" but he restates the fact that there was a "subsidiary political purpose".

"Subsidiary political purpose" translates to "someone else's motivation, not mine and certainly not my colleagues."

Someone who is being used for someone else's political ends will often say there is no plot because they're simply not in on it. In other words, Andrew Neather was a useful idiot, as I'm sure were many members of the Labour government.

He then does the classic Hillary Clinton denial tactic and calls it a right wing conspiracy, a thought terminating accusation, thus assuring the base that they don't need to concern themselves with the facts, nothing to see here plebs, look away.

walshyn93

Suryavarman wrote: »

Democrats can get Americans to vote for them. Hence the current president being a Democrat.

If Central American Government was all about getting free stuff from the Government then Central American Governments should spend more as a percentage of GDP than America shouldn't they? Wikipedia's page on Government spending shows all Central American countries spending less as a percentage of GDP. If anything you should be stopping the flow of Canadian and European immigrants and encouraging the flow of Central American immigrants if you're worried about the expansion of the welfare state.

Most South and Central American countries are heavily influenced by Marxist doctrine. Actual government spending in their former countries is irrelevant. What matters is what the people coming to America believe in or believe they're entitled to. That's what will influence policy. Not what the Columbian government actually does in the situation it finds itself in which is influenced by a different macroeconomic environment to 1st world nations and therefore behaves differently.

Lockstep

walshyn93 wrote: »

The logic of your argument is frankly infantile.

Dangerously close to personal abuse here.

Black Swan

Mid-April CBS national poll agrees with March national Gallup poll that Trump was viewed unfavourably by women; Gallup 70% unfavourable and CBS 69% unfavourable. Only 19% of women in the April CBS poll had a favourable Trump view. This should be a concern for Trump, given that women have tended to vote at a higher rate than men for decades in GEs. In a hypothetical 8 November match-up between Clinton and Trump, CBS poll suggests Clinton leads Trump 58% to 31% among currently registered women voters.

Trump replied by playing "the women's card" against Hillary Clinton, which exemplifies how out-of-touch he is with the women's vote in America. The more he continues to slur his opponent and blame women, the deeper he digs his unfavourably hole with the women's vote.

K-9

Say 70% unfavourable and being generous 30% favourable transferring to votes, he'd need 70% of the male vote. Back of the envelope calculations but a tough ask. It's doable because Hillary does have a sizeable unfavourable rating amongst men, but it's a good bit lower than Trump with women.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Mid-April CBS national poll agrees with March national Gallup poll that Trump was viewed unfavourably by women; Gallup 70% unfavourable and CBS 69% unfavourable. Only 19% of women in the April CBS poll had a favourable Trump view. This should be a concern for Trump, given that women have tended to vote at a higher rate than men for decades in GEs. In a hypothetical 8 November match-up between Clinton and Trump, CBS poll suggests Clinton leads Trump 58% to 31% among currently registered women voters.

Trump replied by playing "the women's card" against Hillary Clinton, which exemplifies how out-of-touch he is with the women's vote in America. The more he continues to slur his opponent and blame women, the deeper he digs his unfavourably hole with the women's vote.

Do women like when other women play the women's card?

There's a big difference in voting patterns between single women and married women. It's not worth looking at female preferences unless you go into more detail. Married women tend to vote along the same lines as their husbands.

There's also the fact that women would be far less likely to give their honest opinion about Trump to a pollster than men. There's no social cost to saying you don't like Trump.

Black Swan

To a large extent state delegate count is associated with number of voters. Of course the Democrats have additional superdelegates, but Republicans essentially have the same thing which they call unpledged delegates (and actually have a higher percentage than Dems demonstrated in a earlier post on this thread). Looking at current delegate counts for Democrat and Republican primaries, it becomes clearly obvious that the Democrats lead substantially in delegate count over Republicans during the primaries/caucuses.

Dem needed for nomination = 2,383.
GOP needed for nomination = 1,237.

Dem Candidate | current delegates
Clinton | 2,165
Sanders | 1,357

GOP Candidate | current delegates
Trump | 996
Cruz | 565
Kasich | 153

It appears obvious that the Republican party is substantially smaller, needing less a thousand delegates than Democrats. Clinton's current delegate count is 2,165 minus Trump's current delegate 996 count = 1,169 Clinton surplus. Does this suggest that for the Republicans to win 8 November 2016 they will need both Dem cross-overs and independents to make up and surpass the Democratic nominee to win the presidency?

Looking at today's Clinton and Sanders delegate numbers (2,165 plus 1,357 = 3,522), to what extent does this suggest that a Clinton-Sanders ticket 8 November 2016 would be deadly to the Republican presidential hopes? A Clinton-Sanders ticket would unify the larger Democratic party, and Sanders is very popular with independents, so Trump could not count on making up the difference with independents. Of course this is very, very rough and hypothetical from a calculation standpoint, along with a few leaps of Clinton-Sanders ticket speculations to boot; but it was fun playing with it over coffee.

walshyn93

As for Trump playing the women's card against Hillary, if he doubles down on that line of criticism it's only going to help him. Based on the number of polls, anywhere between 7-20% of women don't identify themselves as feminists and 52% definitively categorise themselves as NOT feminists.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/a_majority_of_americans_support_gender_equality_so_why_dont_they_identify_as_feminists/


The majority of women are not Tumblr feminists and I'm sure a lot of them are sick of being hectored and bullied by the types Hillary panders to. Hillary is counting on female voters being stupid and voting tribally. Women will be the judge of whether Hillary is playing the women's card.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

To a large extent state delegate count is associated with number of voters. Of course the Democrats have additional superdelegates, but Republicans essentially have the same thing which they call unpledged delegates (and actually have a higher percentage than Dems demonstrated in a earlier post on this thread). Looking at current delegate counts for Democrat and Republican primaries, it becomes clearly obvious that the Democrats lead substantially in delegate count over Republicans during the primaries/caucuses.

Dem needed for nomination = 2,383.
GOP needed for nomination = 1,237.

Dem Candidate | current delegates
Clinton | 2,165
Sanders | 1,357

GOP Candidate | current delegates
Trump | 996
Cruz | 565
Kasich | 153

It appears obvious that the Republican party is substantially smaller, needing less a thousand delegates than Democrats. Clinton's current delegate count is 2,165 minus Trump's current delegate 996 count = 1,169 Clinton surplus. Does this suggest that for the Republicans to win 8 November 2016 they will need both Dem cross-overs and independents to make up and surpass the Democratic nominee to win the presidency?

Looking at today's Clinton and Sanders delegate numbers (2,165 plus 1,237 = 3,522), to what extent does this suggest that a Clinton-Sanders ticket 8 November 2016 would be deadly to the Republican presidential hopes? A Clinton-Sanders ticket would unify the larger Democratic party, and Sanders is very popular with independents, so Trump could not count on making up the difference with independents. Of course this is very, very rough and hypothetical from a calculation standpoint, along with a few leaps of Clinton-Sanders ticket speculations to boot; but it was fun playing with it over coffee.

Sorry, but are you extrapolating the number of delegates to find the size of the parties' respective bases? Is this serious or a joke?

K-9

I'm not sure how the delegate system works, I thought they weren't directly comparable as they used different systems.

Looks like Hillary is nearly there. How many Republican delegates are left and what percentage does Trump need?

The GOP delegates needed are roughly half the Democrat numbers so you'd need to double Trump's and the rests numbers to compare? Even then it might be a pointless exercise.

As for unfavourable ratings, meh, both candidates are unpopular among big sections of the electorate.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

Sorry, but are you extrapolating the number of delegates to find the size of the parties' respective bases? Is this serious or a joke?

Read my disclaimer at the end of my post: "it was fun playing with it over coffee."

walshyn93 wrote: »

As for Trump playing the women's card against Hillary, if he doubles down on that line of criticism it's only going to help him.

Of course polls are only descriptive and not inferential (and caution should be used), but can you explain why Trump gets 70% unfavourability in March Gallup and 69% unfavourability in CBS April national polls with women? The women voting in these polls are not all feminists and not all unmarried women, rather a national sampling across demographics.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Of course polls are only descriptive and not inferential (and caution should be used), but can you explain why Trump gets 70% unfavourability in March Gallup and 69% unfavourability in CBS April national polls with women? The women voting in these polls are not all feminists and not all unmarried women, rather a national sampling across demographics.

Because it's unfashionable to say you like Trump.

Maybe I'm giving women more credit than they deserve. Maybe they really are that easily manipulated by the War on Women narrative.

And when I said doubling down will help him I meant it can only make things better, because they can't get worse. At least doubling down shows he's not prepared to back down. If he gives up the "Hillary plays the victim narrative" he loses out on the chance to erode her image as a capable leader.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Do women like when other women play the women's card?

I think you'll find what angers women about trump's comment is that men play the "man card" all the time.

So to have a sexist misogynist like trump bring up and kind of "card" just pushes more women away.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think you'll find what angers women about trump's comment is that men play the "man card" all the time.

So to have a sexist misogynist like trump bring up and kind of "card" just pushes more women away.

What is playing the "man card"?

When has any American politician said people should vote for him because he's a man?

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

Because it's unfashionable to say you like Trump.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Maybe I'm giving women more credit than they deserve. Maybe they really are that easily manipulated by the War on Women narrative.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And when I said doubling down will help him I meant it can only make things better, because they can't get worse. At least doubling down shows he's not prepared to back down. If he gives up the &quot;Hillary plays the victim narrative&quot; he loses out on the chance to erode her image as a capable leader.

Women not liking Trump does not automatically mean they like Clinton or are feminists.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

<br />
<br />
Women not liking Trump does not automatically mean they like Clinton or are feminists.

I didn't say that though, did I?

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

Because it's unfashionable to say you like Trump.

You asked me if I was being serious with the delegate count "fun" over coffee, and "fun" it was per my disclaimer at post end. And now I have to ask you if you are being serious with this "unfashionable" statement about women's extraordinary unfavourability rating of Trump in 2 different polls conducted by 2 different polling organisations? Is this your position, or Trump's, or both?

walshyn93 wrote: »

Maybe I'm giving women more credit than they deserve. Maybe they really are that easily manipulated by the War on Women narrative.

Is this a Trump position regarding women? If so, no wonder he is trending downward since last Summer in terms of polled unfavourability.

K-9

True.

Why do you think so many women don't like him?

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

When has any American politician said people should vote for him because he's a man?

Trump has.

By disparaging his opponent based on gender.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

And when I said doubling down will help him I meant it can only make things better, because they can't get worse.

True. It cant get much worse for trump with women voters.

Christy42

walshyn93 wrote: »

Because it's unfashionable to say you like Trump.

Maybe I'm giving women more credit than they deserve. Maybe they really are that easily manipulated by the War on Women narrative.

And when I said doubling down will help him I meant it can only make things better, because they can't get worse. At least doubling down shows he's not prepared to back down. If he gives up the "Hillary plays the victim narrative" he loses out on the chance to erode her image as a capable leader.

What narrative. Trump dismissed a question by asking if a woman was on her time of the month. Pretty much all his comments about Clinton have been about her being a woman. She hasn't been playing the woman card, Trump is starting to play the I am not a woman card though (it was rather useless until recently given most of his opponents were male).
He doesn't respect women, why should they respect him? They know Hillary will tackle a lot of issues they have. Can you say Trump would do the same thing?
The woman card remark was ill thought out and quickly became a nice chance for Hillary to score points. Just because the people he has gone up against so far have been relatively weak does not mean Clinton is. She is one of the most experienced politicians in Washington.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

You asked me if I was being serious with the delegate count "fun" over coffee, and "fun" it was per my disclaimer at post end. And now I have to ask you if you are being serious with this "unfashionable" statement about women's extraordinary unfavourability rating of Trump in 2 different polls conducted by 2 different polling organisations? Is this your position, or Trump's, or both?

Is this a Trump position regarding women? If so, no wonder he is trending downward since last Summer in terms of polled unfavourability.

Which part are you having trouble with?

The unfavourables are obviously exaggerated. Everyone who's interested in polling knows that. The only question is to what extent is it exaggerated and to what extent will it affect the outcome in November.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Which part are you having trouble with?

The unfavourables are obviously exaggerated. Everyone who's interested in polling knows that.

You're saying the polls are all wrong?

why are the unfavourables "obviously" wrong? And if "everybody who's interested in polling" knows that then why dont they adjust for it so the reporting is accurate?

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

What narrative. Trump dismissed a question by asking if a woman was on her time of the month. Pretty much all his comments about Clinton have been about her being a woman. She hasn't been playing the woman card, Trump is starting to play the I am not a woman card though (it was rather useless until recently given most of his opponents were male).
He doesn't respect women, why should they respect him? They know Hillary will tackle a lot of issues they have. Can you say Trump would do the same thing?
The woman card remark was ill thought out and quickly became a nice chance for Hillary to score points. Just because the people he has gone up against so far have been relatively weak does not mean Clinton is. She is one of the most experienced politicians in Washington.

Hillary didn't score any points off that. She tried to out-Trump the Trump by agreeing and amplifying but she doesn't have the charisma to pull it off. She won zero votes in that media cycle.

The linguistic trickery Trump uses to control the narrative and the media cycle doesn't just work on Republicans There's nothing innate to Republicans that lets him appeal to them in this way. It works on his investors, clients, customers and it will work on independents and too. "Crooked Hillary" is going to stick like glue and it has a much worse stink than anything you can throw at Trump. Trump has created a strong brand-name based on Hillary. Who is going to vote for a crook?

Hillary is not that smart. Hillary's law professor also taught Bill and Clarence Thomas. He once said "one was smart, one was really smart and one was dumb." Do you think Clarence Thomas is dumb?

Saying that Trump's remarks are "ill-thought out" at this stage of the campaign given everything we've seen is a sign of total denial. You must still think Trump is winning because of racism or something.

By openly accusing Hillary of using the woman's card while the Democratic primary is still under way he has managed to get that phrase into the Overton window at the best possible opportunity, setting it up to be used in future. People will now be more sensitive whenever Hillary tries to use the woman's card. She can't do it now without proving him right.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

You're saying the polls are all wrong?

No

Black Swan

K-9 wrote: »

True.

Why do you think so many women don't like him?

During Trump's campaign he has said many degrading remarks about women, sometime referring to a particular news caster, celebrity, or Clinton, not realising that his comments are offensive to most women in general.

National Reivew: More than 3 million people have seen the anti-Trump ad in which women repeat real quotes about women from Donald Trump, such as “bimbo” and “fat pig.” Trump described Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her wherever” and mocked Carly Fiorina’s appearance by saying, “Look at that face.” He tweeted a picture of Melania Trump next to Heidi Cruz, as if potential first ladies are contestants in a Miss Universe pageant. And when asked whether women should be punished in the event that abortion became illegal, he suggested that they should be.

If Trump is "telling it like it is" per what many of his supporters claim, then Trump is a sexist based upon what has come out of his mouth starting last Summer and continuing today. This may explain why his unfavouribility rating among women was extraordinary across several recent polls conducted by several different organisations.

POLITICO: The percentages of women who had an unfavorable or negative impression of Trump in recent public polls are staggering: 67 percent (Fox News), 67 percent (Quinnipiac University), 70 percent (NBC News/Wall Street Journal), 73 percent (CNN/ORC) and 74 percent (ABC News/Washington Post).

Furthermore, Republican Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison told MSNBC Friday that Trump made a mistake playing the "women's card," and ""we don't need any more of these personal slights" against women by Trump.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

True.

Why do you think so many women don't like him?

I know some very intelligent women. One of them recently didn't know which party Joan Burton was in or whether she was in even government or not.

I just think most women especially unmarried women don't care as much about politics and so they only see the information that is presented to them rather than look for it for themselves. I think they're more likely to take the media at face value.

This is why sites like Buzzfeed are influential with women, because they mix politically charged content with puppies, food porn and ****-lists.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

During Trump's campaign he has said many degrading remarks about women, sometime referring to a particular news caster, celebrity, or Clinton, not realising that his comments are offensive to most women in general.



If Trump is "telling it like it is" per what many of his supporters claim, then Trump is a sexist based upon what has come out of his mouth starting last Summer and continuing today. This may explain why his unfavouribility rating among women was extraordinary across several recent polls conducted by several different organisations.



Furthermore, Republican Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison told MSNBC Friday that Trump made a mistake playing the "women's card," and ""we don't need any more of these personal slights" against women by Trump.

In other words, he hurts their feelings.