2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

InTheTrees

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The English language is certainly in for a hard time if Trump wins.

From Alice In Wonderland:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

timmyntc

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But if he hasn't won a majority then it is reasonable to suggest that much and possibly most of the GOP doesn't actually want him as their nominee.

I may be wrong, but I think that prior to Cruz dropping out and all, Trump was averaging over 50% in most polls for the primaries, just about a majority. In the early primaries there were so many candidates splitting the vote a true majority was extremely unlikely.

JPNelsforearm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But if he hasn't won a majority then it is reasonable to suggest that much and possibly most of the GOP doesn't actually want him as their nominee.

Fair point, but the Party couldnt muster up anyone who was palatable in opposition to him, the opposition came from Cruz, a tea party/god squad candidate, Bush was the establishment pick. Look at Bush, the presumptive nominee at the start of this cycle, he literally had to ask people to clap for him, blew a few hundred million for 5%?

Trump will do better than Romney and McCain, its just a question of how much can he tear into Hillary and does the GOP want to lose an election or possibly win one by rowing in behind him. The only way Trump is trending is up, Hillary is trending down.

ancapailldorcha

timmyntc wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I think that prior to Cruz dropping out and all, Trump was averaging over 50% in most polls for the primaries, just about a majority. In the early primaries there were so many candidates splitting the vote a true majority was extremely unlikely.

I don't have the figures to hand. I'd say his average is little over 50% if it is at all.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Fair point, but the Party couldnt muster up anyone who was palatable in opposition to him, the opposition came from Cruz, a tea party/god squad candidate, Bush was the establishment pick. Look at Bush, the presumptive nominee at the start of this cycle, he literally had to ask people to clap for him, blew a few hundred million for 5%?

Trump will do better than Romney and McCain, its just a question of how much can he tear into Hillary and does the GOP want to lose an election or possibly win one by rowing in behind him. The only way Trump is trending is up, Hillary is trending down.

I preferred Rand Paul myself.

In any case, I feel that Trump is too divisive a candidate to win. Sanders supporters will flock to the Hilary camp as will many centrist Republicans. Wage stagnation is one of the few issues that most media outlets acknowledge. However, its roots are much more complex than trade and immigration and many Republicans will know this.

RobertKK

Looks like Kasich is going to drop out later today, cancels events and is going back to Ohio to make a statement.


All the talk of a contested Republican convention falls to pieces...

Amazingfun

I really hope Kasich goes today, but strangely, it's #DropoutHillary that is trending currently......what a year!

Quin_Dub

RobertKK wrote: »

Looks like Kasich is going to drop out later today, cancels events and is going back to Ohio to make a statement.


All the talk of a contested Republican convention falls to pieces...

So now the question becomes - Who does Trump pick as his running mate?

Will the GOP try to get him to pick an "establishment" candidate (maybe even Kasich?) ?.

Trump himself has alluded to picking someone more mainstream. Will be interesting to see if it's any of the previous candidates though...

Having said that , will anyone with future aspirations want to tie themselves to a Trump campaign?

eire4

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Red.... but not overwhelmingly.

Usually GOP for the presidency (except for Barry in 2008) & currently has a GOP governor.

Not overwhelmingly red? I think you might want to check that. Indiana is a very very red state.
Not only is the governor a Republican but the Indiana state legislature is utterly dominated by the Republicans. The state house is 71-29 Republican and the state senate is 40-10 Republican. I would call that overwhemingly red in my book.

Amazingfun

Fox just reported Kasich is OUT!

BoJack Horseman

eire4 wrote: »

Not overwhelmingly red? I think you might want to check that. Indiana is a very very red state.
Not only is the governor a Republican but the Indiana state legislature is utterly dominated by the Republicans. The state house is 71-29 Republican and the state senate is 40-10 Republican. I would call that overwhemingly red in my book.

Yeah, I think I was picturing Ohio next door instead.

BoJack Horseman

Amazingfun wrote: »

Fox just reported Kasich is OUT!

As someone above said, 4th in a 2-horse race....

I thought in a brokered convention he would hang around and wait to become the rallying point of sensibility..... but remaining on his own with 1/7th the delegate count probably seemed too much of a reach.

Amazingfun

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So now the question becomes - Who does Trump pick as his running mate?

Will the GOP try to get him to pick an "establishment" candidate (maybe even Kasich?) ?.

Trump himself has alluded to picking someone more mainstream. Will be interesting to see if it's any of the previous candidates though...

Having said that , will anyone with future aspirations want to tie themselves to a Trump campaign?

I hope he picks Kris Kobach or Jeff Sessions. However, I still think Scott Brown and Democrat Jim Webb are possibilities. If he does go the female route, perhaps Oklahoma Gov Mary Fallin is an option. Trump does pride himself on his "unpredictability" though, so who knows.

I am so buzzed today even talking about this

eire4

Voter suppression is typically seen as a Republican tactic to steal elections but it must be said we are seeing evidence of Democratic voter suppression in the current Democratic primary race.
In New York which it is claimed Clinton won by 15 points or so it seems over 100,000 voters were purged from the polls and mostly in areas leaning toward Sanders. So while Sanders may still have lost New York it is highly unlikely that he would have lost by more then single digits.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/officials-investigating-why-126000-voters-were-purged-from-ny-rolls/


This comes on the back of major election fraud being witnessed in Chicago. Now Illinois voted in mid March but in early April they did a mandatory election audit and in that audit mass fraud in favour of Clinton took place. Now given Illinois was won by Clinton by a mere 1.8% it is fair to say Sanders likely got cheated out of a win there which would have been a massive boost to him given the size of Illinois.


http://reverbpress.com/politics/chicago-election-audit-observers-video/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/only-voter-suppression-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html

It would seem that the Democratic establishment are showing that they can use voter suppression when they want to to protect their own half of the ever increasingly broken and corrupt American political system/oligarchy.

RobertKK

Amazingfun wrote: »

I hope he picks Kris Kobach or Jeff Sessions. However, I still think Scott Brown and Democrat Jim Webb are possibilities. If he does go the female route, perhaps Oklahoma Gov Mary Fallin is an option. Trump does pride himself on his "unpredictability" though, so who knows.

I am so buzzed today even talking about this

I think Trump should go for a woman and an African American woman - Condoleezza Rice.
She is highly intelligent, competent and would be a popular woman, unlike Clinton.
She would have most of the NeverTrump people back in the camp voting for a Trump/Rice card

KingBrian2

This whole primary process has been a slap in the face to propaganda outfits everywhere. No matter what you print, your malicious false innuendos and character assassinations are seen through by the voters. Many Republicans were not duped by the GOP est and the Bernie voters were not going to fall for the lies of his political opponent.

InTheTrees

I dont have any more recent numbers but its worth nothing that as of March, Hillary was well ahead of Trump in total numbers of votes cast.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/19/471102628/yes-clintons-gotten-the-most-votes-but-gop-has-more-overall

oscarBravo

Amazingfun wrote: »

Have you yourself not deemed the latter good and the former bad?
Why the sudden "confusion" ?

I have?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If anyone needs proof that "non-white" identity politics is as bad as "white" identity politics then just look back at O' Malley being forced to apologise when he suggested that "all lives matter"

The problem with "all lives matter" is that it's presented as if it's a simple truism. Granted, if you make the herculean effort of will to fool yourself that it's a statement that stands in complete isolation with no context or subtext, it's hard to argue with it.

But everyone who's even remotely honest with themselves knows that "all lives matter" is just a counter to "black lives matter" - the only reason for saying it is to argue against the idea that there's an strong current of mainstream racism informing much of American society.

Now, there are some on this very forum who would cheerfully argue against that premise - but then, there are some who would argue that climate change isn't something we need to worry about. Some people are very, very good at lying to themselves.

Eugene Norman

timmyntc wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I think that prior to Cruz dropping out and all, Trump was averaging over 50% in most polls for the primaries, just about a majority. In the early primaries there were so many candidates splitting the vote a true majority was extremely unlikely.

If there were a second preference vote he would have got 60-70% of the vote. That said there are republicans who won't vote for him.

Suryavarman

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dont have any more recent numbers but its worth nothing that as of March, Hillary was well ahead of Trump in total numbers of votes cast.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/19/471102628/yes-clintons-gotten-the-most-votes-but-gop-has-more-overall

Trump also had five opponents at the beginning of March whereas Clinton had one.

Christy42

eire4 wrote: »

Voter suppression is typically seen as a Republican tactic to steal elections but it must be said we are seeing evidence of Democratic voter suppression in the current Democratic primary race.
In New York which it is claimed Clinton won by 15 points or so it seems over 100,000 voters were purged from the polls and mostly in areas leaning toward Sanders. So while Sanders may still have lost New York it is highly unlikely that he would have lost by more then single digits.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/officials-investigating-why-126000-voters-were-purged-from-ny-rolls/


This comes on the back of major election fraud being witnessed in Chicago. Now Illinois voted in mid March but in early April they did a mandatory election audit and in that audit mass fraud in favour of Clinton took place. Now given Illinois was won by Clinton by a mere 1.8% it is fair to say Sanders likely got cheated out of a win there which would have been a massive boost to him given the size of Illinois.


http://reverbpress.com/politics/chicago-election-audit-observers-video/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/only-voter-suppression-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html

It would seem that the Democratic establishment are showing that they can use voter suppression when they want to to protect their own half of the ever increasingly broken and corrupt American political system/oligarchy.

Just read the first one. Couldn't stomach another stream of crazy like the first article.
First of all it seems to decide that last 10 states are all that matters entirely ignoring that the demographics in those states were in Sanders favour. He was always going to catch up in the whiter states.

It fails to mention that there were issues in districts in new York that favoured Clinton as reported in the fivethirtyeight live blog of that primary. It gives out about New York being a closed primary when I have no idea what has to do with Clinton cheating (hint she didn't get it changed for this nomination race).

It decides that exit polls are accurate when there is a very specific warning with that they aren't. This is a point blank lie and shows that the writer is incompetent or maliciously lieing. They are for studying what happened after the fact and seeing how demographics voted. They are subject to massive massive bias in terms of who is willing to add their opinion. As a lot younger people hand them out younger people (I.e. a good demographic for Sander's) fill them in more frequently.

Finally as for Sanders having a better chance vs Trump. Very probable but votes are what get a nomination not polls so irrelevant. Also if polls were that accurate this far out Trump may as well give up now.

This is from someone who would have voted Sanders if I had the chance.

Amazingfun

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have?

The problem with "all lives matter" is that it's presented as if it's a simple truism. Granted, if you make the herculean effort of will to fool yourself that it's a statement that stands in complete isolation with no context or subtext, it's hard to argue with it.

But everyone who's even remotely honest with themselves knows that "all lives matter" is just a counter to "black lives matter" - the only reason for saying it is to argue against the idea that there's an strong current of mainstream racism informing much of American society.

Now, there are some on this very forum who would cheerfully argue against that premise - but then, there are some who would argue that climate change isn't something we need to worry about. Some people are very, very good at lying to themselves.

Oh please. The Black Lives Matter movement STILL trots out the provable falsehood that Michael Brown was some innocent darling targeted for death by Darren Wilson. They lie, and the are aided and abetted in this lie by many who engage in the "Herculean" SJW type mental gymnastics you refer to here.

Look, my experience is that this forum is not exactly a "safe space" for a really frank and open conversation about racial politics. I am going to leave it here for that reason as I want to enjoy the Trump/Hillary contest. However, ALL Lives MAtter is presented as a "simple truism", because-and this is deep- it is true.

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have no sympathy given that many Trump supporters are more than happy to sneer at everyone else. Given his comments about women, ethnic minorities and so on, a lot of it seems understandable.

Well exactly, Trump made things personal so...
Remarkable achievement all the same and he didn't play, well failed at is probably the correct term, to the Evangelical vote so that's something.
The comments from the ex House speaker Boehner calling Cruz Lucifer was the final stake in the heart. When even the GOP establishment don't trust you...
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36163188

Black Swan

timmyntc wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I think that prior to Cruz dropping out and all, Trump was averaging over 50% in most polls for the primaries...

Trump was in the 40 percentiles in most national polls before Cruz and Kasich dropped out. But that's a moot point now that he is the remaining Republican candidate for 8 November 2016.

Poll | Taken | Percent
CNN/ORC | 28 Apr-1 May | 49
IBD/TIPP | 22-28 Apr | 48
USA Today | 20-24 Apr | 45
Fox News | 11-13 Apr | 45
NBC/WSJ | 10-14 Apr | 40
CBS News | 8-12 Apr | 42
Atlantic/PRRI | 30 Mar-3 Apr | 37
McClatchy/Marist | 29-31 Mar | 40
Pew Research | 17-27 Mar | 41
PPP | 24-26 Mar | 42
Bloomberg | 19-22 Mar | 40
Monmouth | 17-20 Mar | 41

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If anyone needs proof that "non-white" identity politics is as bad as "white" identity politics then just look back at O' Malley being forced to apologise when he suggested that "all lives matter"

One side thrives and feeds the other. Trump will have to tone it down during the campaign to try and win Independent votes. I don't think his grassroots followers will mind as they're sold anyway.

K-9

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump was in the 40 percentiles in most national polls before Cruz and Kasich dropped out. But that's a moot point now that he is the remaining Republican candidate for 8 November 2016.

Poll | Taken | Percent
CNN/ORC | 28 Apr-1 May | 49
IBD/TIPP | 22-28 Apr | 48
USA Today | 20-24 Apr | 45
Fox News | 11-13 Apr | 45
NBC/WSJ | 10-14 Apr | 40
CBS News | 8-12 Apr | 42
Atlantic/PRRI | 30 Mar-3 Apr | 37
McClatchy/Marist | 29-31 Mar | 40
Pew Research | 17-27 Mar | 41
PPP | 24-26 Mar | 42
Bloomberg | 19-22 Mar | 40
Monmouth | 17-20 Mar | 41

I read last night that 50% of Republicans in Indiana just weren't that bothered by either candidate, it isn't a Red state so that might explain it, worrying none the less. We all know Trump has a zealot type base, the problem is many, many Republicans go meh or actually do not like him at all.

70% of Dems liked their candidates, the Bernie factor a big part there, but I'd say Trump has more work to do appealing to the GOP base than Hillary has to Dems.

Black Swan

K-9 wrote: »

70% of Dems liked their candidates, the Bernie factor a big part there, but I'd say Trump has more work to do appealing to the GOP base than Hillary has to Dems.

Reflecting on past months campaigning since Summer, methinks it's going to be a very close race 8 November 2016 between Clinton and Trump; and furthermore, a very dirty one by American standards if Trump continues in the same fashion he did when opposing his Republican opponents during the primaries. As suggested before, the only way to totally crush Trump November would be for a Clinton-Sanders ticket that would unify the Dems and bring in loads of Sanders independents, but that's not going to happen, because Hillary Clinton is not that smart, and Sanders would require several concessions from Clinton before joining the ticket as her running mate.

oscarBravo

Amazingfun wrote: »

Oh please. The Black Lives Matter movement STILL trots out the provable falsehood that Michael Brown was some innocent darling targeted for death by Darren Wilson. They lie, and the are aided and abetted in this lie by many who engage in the "Herculean" SJW type mental gymnastics you refer to here.

The tragedy is that you probably think you've conclusively refuted the entire idea that there is systemic and endemic racism in America.

When did fighting for social justice become something to be sneered at, anyway?

However, ALL Lives MAtter is presented as a "simple truism", because-and this is deep- it is true.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

The tragedy is that you probably think you've conclusively refuted the entire idea that there is systemic and endemic racism in America.

When did fighting for social justice become something to be sneered at, anyway? Thanks for proving my point for me.

When it became a misery stakes competition, that white people, due to their inherent privilege, dont qualify for, and thus can be legislated and discriminated against, in the name of "equality", and "justice".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IlGoeDIUQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3mvbxeA1UA

"Women workers today earn 78 percent of what their male counterparts make. We need pay equity in our country--equal pay for equal work.
Source: 2016 presidential campaign website, BernieSanders.com , Mar 21, 2015"

Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.

HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1997, would prohibit any post-secondary institution that participates in any program under the Higher Education Act from discriminating or granting any preferential treatment in admission based on race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Riggs, R-CA.; Bill HR 6 ; vote number 1998-133 on May 6, 1998

But its not racist, sexist or discriminatory in any way, because its social justice and its the left proposing it as opposed to some Afrikaner.

oscarBravo

JP, when you figure out how to articulate an argument without relying on embedded videos, come back to me.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have?

The problem with "all lives matter" is that it's presented as if it's a simple truism. Granted, if you make the herculean effort of will to fool yourself that it's a statement that stands in complete isolation with no context or subtext, it's hard to argue with it.

But everyone who's even remotely honest with themselves knows that "all lives matter" is just a counter to "black lives matter" - the only reason for saying it is to argue against the idea that there's an strong current of mainstream racism informing much of American society.

Now, there are some on this very forum who would cheerfully argue against that premise - but then, there are some who would argue that climate change isn't something we need to worry about. Some people are very, very good at lying to themselves.

I disagree actually. The problem with the "Black Lives Matter" slogan is that it racially polarises a bigger issue. Yes, there is a lot of racism in American law enforcement and that is an absolute disgrace. But the bigger issue, which is in my view far more lethal, and is being obscured by the focus on race, is
(a) the American police are far too militarised and use far too much force for small sh!t (example, a few years ago a huge armed SWAT team raided a guy's house and shot his two dogs in front of his kids for drug posession, in Ireland you'd get a knock on the door and a few Gardai to take you to the station, or even just a court summons through the letterbox - you don't deal with every criminal as if they're a mafia don with hundreds of bodyguards)

and (b), the total and utter impunity any time a cop does anything wrong, even when there's overwhelming video evidence and witness testimony.

By focusing entirely on the racial aspect of, for example, Eric Garner's death, that movement has essentially allowed the other issue - the fact that in a civilised country, those cops should have faced criminal charges regardless of why they did what they did - to be swept aside by the political establishment in the States. The fact that the cops are not held to an absolute standard of only ever using the minimum amount of force necessary, as they are in Ireland and elsewhere. This holds true regardless of the race of the victim of police brutality, but the focus on race has meant that nobody at a high level is questioning whether "maybe, not requiring cops to justify each individual shot they fire after the fact isn't such a good idea, given how often they massively overreact to trivial scenarios".

EDIT: To clarify on Eric Garner, the focus on race has led to the discussion being framed in the context of "why do they do this to black people" rather than the bigger issue of "why the f*ck are they not automatically prosecuted on criminal charges when it's very, very clear that they used an illegal method of violence against this person". I'm not convinced the the latter is an issue of race, as during the Occupy movement there were numerous examples of this happening with both black and white protesters - the issue, instead, is that the American establishment sets a disgracefully high bar for criminally charging cops for things that any other citizen would rot in SuperMax for months just in pre-trial detention.