2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

K-9

Magnate wrote: »

This.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/this-is-the-one-way-in-wh_b_10026870.html

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/19/trump-wastes-no-time-in-blaming-terrorism-for-egyptair-crash/

The mainstream media still proceeding with their failed methods of attack against Trump on foreign policy, this false Trudeauean narrative of "if you kill your enemies, they win".

Mod:

Please provide a few lines of opinion about the actual article when providing links. A bit more substance and less rants please .

KingBrian2

What Trump is getting at in fairness to him a few Muslims would agree with him. You don't have to be a conservative to want vigilance, strength and resolve or a combination of all three and more to combat a bunch of fanatics. Are Trump's people all fanatics no I'd say he has some good people among them.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What Trump is getting at in fairness to him a few Muslims would agree with him. You don't have to be a conservative to want vigilance, strength and resolve or a combination of all three and more to combat a bunch of fanatics.

You're doing exactly the same thing JP was doing: you're taking Trump's points, agreeing with his conclusions and ignoring the total absence of a thought process to arrive at them. Which is like looking at a stopped watch at exactly the time it's indicating and concluding that it's a pretty accurate watch.

Trump is talking about vigilance, strength, resolve - and Paris - in the context of an air crash about which we know pretty much nothing.

Will the crash turn out to be a result of terrorism? Maybe. Does that make Trump right? Only in the sense that those economists who predicted twelve of the last three recessions were correct.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're doing exactly the same thing JP was doing: you're taking Trump's points, agreeing with his conclusions and ignoring the total absence of a thought process to arrive at them. Which is like looking at a stopped watch at exactly the time it's indicating and concluding that it's a pretty accurate watch.

Trump is talking about vigilance, strength, resolve - and Paris - in the context of an air crash about which we know pretty much nothing.

Will the crash turn out to be a result of terrorism? Maybe. Does that make Trump right? Only in the sense that those economists who predicted twelve of the last three recessions were correct.

It is not Trump being right or wrong it is him voicing what the border security need to be alert about. No other politician even comments of these matters. Does the Mayor of New York say anything or the UN General Secretary! No we have a vacuum and this is were Trump is at his element he gets it, allowing unrestricted mass movement of people is not good. Infact Trump would be against all that additional pat downs because like us we all know who is not a terrorist and those who are. People who are Irish, American or French or whatever all their life and never went to live in the mountains of Afghanistan should not be treated the same as persons with records.

Billy86

We all know who are terrorists? Hey Brian, ever been to Maspeth in Queens?

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

We all know who are terrorists? Hey Brian, ever been to Maspeth in Queens?

Native Dubliner all my life and damn proud of it.:) Don't know what other countries do be getting up to.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Native Dubliner all my life and damn proud of it.:) Don't know what other countries do be getting up to.

Perfect then, what will you find in Maspeth?

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Perfect then, what will you find in Maspeth?

Have not the foggiest.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is not Trump being right or wrong it is him voicing what the border security need to be alert about.

...in the context of a plane crash, when we still don't know what caused the plane to crash.

Which was the point of the article JP got all upset about: if you're mouthing off about terrorism and vigilance in the context of an incident that, as yet, may have nothing to do with terrorism, you're not contributing anything but noise.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Have not the foggiest.

Plenty of Irish terrorists and illegals, indeed many whom are both.

511

Billy86 wrote: »

We all know who are terrorists? Hey Brian, ever been to Maspeth in Queens?

Billy86 wrote: »

Perfect then, what will you find in Maspeth?

Billy86 wrote: »

Plenty of Irish terrorists and illegals, indeed many whom are both.

Are you supposed to be making a point with these semi-cryptic one-liners?

Billy86

511 wrote: »

Are you supposed to be making a point with these semi-cryptic one-liners?

As Brian said...

"Infact Trump would be against all that additional pat downs because like us we all know who is not a terrorist and those who are. People who are Irish, American or French or whatever all their life and never went to live in the mountains of Afghanistan should not be treated the same as persons with records."

Truth is though, we don't always know who is a terrorist, not by a long shot.

Inquitus

I go to the US about once a month for work, so I have been talking to my colleagues, both Dems and I have to say mostly it seems Republicans, as the primary season has progressed. The change in tune from the GOP supporters has been noticable, from being generally mocking of Trump and his candidacy they seem to be changing their tune and getting behind him as the GOP Candidate, we need a change from traditional candidates, his business background stands to him, he's got charisma etc etc.

I always gave him a good chance of winning the GOP nomination since the primaries started, given he has always been the front runner, but even I thought one of his frequent outbursts would eventually undo him. I have to say having just returned from 2 weeks over there, he is in with a decent shout of defeating Hillary, he seems to be polling well in the key swing states within the margin of error or ahead in PA, OH and FL and he seems completely teflon, impervious to criticism of his many gaffes and a history of controversial statements.

The GOP is beginning to align behind him, a 3rd party candidacy doesn't seem likely, and Bernie Sanders is damaging Hillary by his continued good results and insistance on taking this to the Dem convention. I hope and pray Trump doesn't win, but having always been entertained by his candidacy, I never gave him a chance until now, but it seems to me there's a real danger he can win.

KingBrian2

Inquitus wrote: »

I go to the US about once a month for work, so I have been talking to my colleagues, both Dems and I have to say mostly it seems Republicans, as the primary season has progressed. The change in tune from the GOP supporters has been noticable, from being generally mocking of Trump and his candidacy they seem to be changing their tune and getting behind him as the GOP Candidate, we need a change from traditional candidates, his business background stands to him, he's got charisma etc etc.

I always gave him a good chance of winning the GOP nomination since the primaries started, given he has always been the front runner, but even I thought one of his frequent outbursts would eventually undo him. I have to say having just returned from 2 weeks over there, he is in with a decent shout of defeating Hillary, he seems to be polling well in the key swing states within the margin of error or ahead in PA, OH and FL and he seems completely teflon, impervious to criticism of his many gaffes and a history of controversial statements.

The GOP is beginning to align behind him, a 3rd party candidacy doesn't seem likely, and Bernie Sanders is damaging Hillary by his continued good results and insistance on taking this to the Dem convention. I hope and pray Trump doesn't win, but having always been entertained by his candidacy, I never gave him a chance until now, but it seems to me there's a real danger he can win.

He still has to pick a VP remember when McCain chose Palin who coincidently is on the Trump bandwagon.:pac: Everything is to play for. Hillary has been left off the hook by the media.

hatrickpatrick

Amerika wrote: »

A female, or male for that matter, in the GOP that would appeal to socialist Sanders supporters? Good one!

Many Sanders supporters are already considering a vote for Trump. They prioritise attacking the establishment above all other concerns, as they see the political system as fundamentally holding back change.

The idea stems from one of two arguments: Firstly, that letting Trump get elected would punish the DNC for its shenanigans during the primary, and ensure that they'd be too scared to pull the same stuff again next election. Alternatively, the other argument is that Trump would f*ck everything up so much that the Dems would be guaranteed a victory in 2020 with a more progressive candidate, whereas electing Clinton would condemn America to either eight years of centre-right Democrat rule or four years of that followed by a Republican victory in 2020, potentially leading to twelve years of right wing dominance.

Christy42

Inquitus wrote: »

I go to the US about once a month for work, so I have been talking to my colleagues, both Dems and I have to say mostly it seems Republicans, as the primary season has progressed. The change in tune from the GOP supporters has been noticable, from being generally mocking of Trump and his candidacy they seem to be changing their tune and getting behind him as the GOP Candidate, we need a change from traditional candidates, his business background stands to him, he's got charisma etc etc.

I always gave him a good chance of winning the GOP nomination since the primaries started, given he has always been the front runner, but even I thought one of his frequent outbursts would eventually undo him. I have to say having just returned from 2 weeks over there, he is in with a decent shout of defeating Hillary, he seems to be polling well in the key swing states within the margin of error or ahead in PA, OH and FL and he seems completely teflon, impervious to criticism of his many gaffes and a history of controversial statements.

The GOP is beginning to align behind him, a 3rd party candidacy doesn't seem likely, and Bernie Sanders is damaging Hillary by his continued good results and insistance on taking this to the Dem convention. I hope and pray Trump doesn't win, but having always been entertained by his candidacy, I never gave him a chance until now, but it seems to me there's a real danger he can win.

It is ridiculous how much they are switching to back Trump. They are more than happy to boost up their party at the expense of their policies.

Trump does nothing for politics in the states. If he wins it shows the parties in the states that you want an outsider with a bit of charisma. From that point on he can say anything and be in with a shot no matter how stupid or how much it contradicts party policies or even the candidates own statements.

Note: this will only work if he is a rich white dude . Otherwise it will fall flat on its face in seconds.

Black Swan

One of the most absurd suggestions I've recently heard is a Trump-Sanders ticket. Since the campaign began, Sanders has been diametrically opposed to the obsessively rich billionaires like Trump, especially born rich people like Trump. Methinks such suggestions by the media have no merit, and are just attempts to stir up viewership and ratings for media-gains and not to inform.

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

One of the most absurd suggestions I've recently heard is a Trump-Sanders ticket. Since the campaign began, Sanders has been diametrically opposed to the obsessively rich billionaires like Trump, especially born rich people like Trump. Methinks such suggestions by the media have no merit, and are just attempts to stir up viewership and ratings for media-gains and not to inform.

It's quite sad that anyone would even buy into it, to be honest.

Akrasia

Trump now leads Clinton in the RealClearPolitics national polling average

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

It's a statistically insignificant lead of a fifth of 1 percent, but it does show Clinton support evaporating

In the RCP electoral map, neither candidate gets the 270 electoral college votes required for victory, Clinton is leading but a lot of states are still a statistical toss up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html


In a Trump v Sanders match up, Sanders is way way ahead and and would only need a couple of toss ups to go in his favour to secure the victory.

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Many Sanders supporters are already considering a vote for Trump. They prioritise attacking the establishment above all other concerns, as they see the political system as fundamentally holding back change.

The idea stems from one of two arguments: Firstly, that letting Trump get elected would punish the DNC for its shenanigans during the primary, and ensure that they'd be too scared to pull the same stuff again next election. Alternatively, the other argument is that Trump would f*ck everything up so much that the Dems would be guaranteed a victory in 2020 with a more progressive candidate, whereas electing Clinton would condemn America to either eight years of centre-right Democrat rule or four years of that followed by a Republican victory in 2020, potentially leading to twelve years of right wing dominance.

I do hear this from time to time and it is simply just not grounded in reality. Yes more and more Sanders supporters are getting ticked off at the corporate Democratic party and more and more will not vote for Clinton. But they will not be voting for a demagogue billionaire who represents the very 1% and income inequality they are railing against. The increasingly numerous and vocal Bernie or bust group have made it very clear all along they will vote for Bernie as a write in candidate or they will vote for the Green Party nomination Jill Stein. I am sure its is possible to find someone somewhere who said they voted for Sanders who now says they will vote for Trump but the idea that Sanders supporters in any kind of numbers will be voting for a demagogue billionaire is laughable. They will as Bernie or bust people have all along said be voting Bernie as a write in or Jill Stein of the Green Party.

KingBrian2

eire4 wrote: »

I do hear this from time to time and it is simply just not grounded in reality. Yes more and more Sanders supporters are getting ticked off at the corporate Democratic party and more and more will not vote for Clinton. But they will not be voting for a demagogue billionaire who represents the very 1% and income inequality they are railing against. The increasingly numerous and vocal Bernie or bust group have made it very clear all along they will vote for Bernie as a write in candidate or they will vote for the Green Party nomination Jill Stein. I am sure its is possible to find someone somewhere who said they voted for Sanders who now says they will vote for Trump but the idea that Sanders supporters in any kind of numbers will be voting for a demagogue billionaire is laughable. They will as Bernie or bust people have all along said be voting Bernie as a write in or Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Were looking at a boycotted election. Where does that leave mainstream politics in America?:P

Amerika

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Amerika wrote: »

A female, or male for that matter, in the GOP that would appeal to socialist Sanders supporters? Good one!

Many Sanders supporters are already considering a vote for Trump. They prioritise attacking the establishment above all other concerns, as they see the political system as fundamentally holding back change.

The idea stems from one of two arguments: Firstly, that letting Trump get elected would punish the DNC for its shenanigans during the primary, and ensure that they'd be too scared to pull the same stuff again next election. Alternatively, the other argument is that Trump would f*ck everything up so much that the Dems would be guaranteed a victory in 2020 with a more progressive candidate, whereas electing Clinton would condemn America to either eight years of centre-right Democrat rule or four years of that followed by a Republican victory in 2020, potentially leading to twelve years of right wing dominance.

Okay, disgust for Clinton trumping ideology might be a reason the Sanders supporters could favor The Donald.

Newest possibility being floated is if Sanders is disrespected and ignored at the DNC convention. That Sanders and his followers might consider a run with the Green Party. Sanders could get on enough ballots to have a major impact on the general election and act as a spoiler to Clinton s aspirations. The Green Party have at least 20 states where their nominee will get a spot on the ballot, no matter what. And those states include New York, California, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Colorado.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KingBrian2

The saying going around you have to have big money to win and this proves Sanders fundamental point therefore Trump winning is a confirmation of his well held views and to sharpen this message Trump himself freely admits the entire process is rigged so he has already scored a major victory for his cause that Washington is full of crooks and only he can take them on. The underlining emphasis is that politics in America is corrupt and it would be better to completely change the political system. Keep this up with the radicals and I half expect a Revolution. If one looks at Ireland a 100 years ago we had two political groups the Revolutionaries and the Constitutionalists. The Revolutionaries always kept the Constitutionalists feet to the fire. I see a similar set up taking place in the US.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Many Sanders supporters are already considering a vote for Trump. They prioritise attacking the establishment above all other concerns, as they see the political system as fundamentally holding back change.

The idea stems from one of two arguments: Firstly, that letting Trump get elected would punish the DNC for its shenanigans during the primary, and ensure that they'd be too scared to pull the same stuff again next election. Alternatively, the other argument is that Trump would f*ck everything up so much that the Dems would be guaranteed a victory in 2020 with a more progressive candidate, whereas electing Clinton would condemn America to either eight years of centre-right Democrat rule or four years of that followed by a Republican victory in 2020, potentially leading to twelve years of right wing dominance.

I do hear this from time to time and it is simply just not grounded in reality. Yes more and more Sanders supporters are getting ticked off at the corporate Democratic party and more and more will not vote for Clinton. But they will not be voting for a demagogue billionaire who represents the very 1% and income inequality they are railing against. The increasingly numerous and vocal Bernie or bust group have made it very clear all along they will vote for Bernie as a write in candidate or they will vote for the Green Party nomination Jill Stein. I am sure its is possible to find someone somewhere who said they voted for Sanders who now says they will vote for Trump but the idea that Sanders supporters in any kind of numbers will be voting for a demagogue billionaire is laughable. They will as Bernie or bust people have all along said be voting Bernie as a write in or Jill Stein of the Green Party.

As long as they're not voting for Hillary, I don't think Trump cares as much. If disaffected republicans will vote Trump to keep Hillary out while disaffected Democrats vote Bernie or Stein in order to express displeasure with Hillary, that's probably going to be enough.

The path to a win is still in Hillary's favour, with the Trump requirement to all but sweep the swing states. However, what's important to the swing states like OH, PA, and FL is actually Hillary's weak point. Economy.

Of note, also, all those three States are "Shall issue" for concealed firearms, all three have a right to arms in their constitutions, are assault-weapon friendly, two of the three have Stand-your-ground laws, are heavy with union members who like to hunt, and this weekend Trump is getting the endorsement of the NRA while Clinton was meeting with Trayvon Martin's mother. One of those two is still focusing on reducing the Sanders vote in liberal areas, the other is aiming at the swing states.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It depends upon which Trump you are talking about Permabear? The September Trump or the May Trump? Last September Trump called for reducing taxes on the highest earners from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. The May Trump said “I am willing to pay more. And you know what? The wealthy are willing to pay more.”

Trump is a chronic policy flip-flopper, shifting from one position to a completely contradictory position, sometimes within months (e.g., reducing taxes then increasing taxes for highest incomes), and sometimes within a couple days (e.g., criminalisation of women having abortions; then not).

The humour of Seph Meyers and the "Magic Trump Ball" (i.e., from the magic 8 ball that you shake up and a different answer appears each time) has quite a bit of ironic commentary completely ignored by Trump's true believers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Christy42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So which one will he enact upon being elected? Why would he stick to the line that is being purely used to get votes from more moderate voters as opposed to his lines to get votes from the right?
If he picks every position on a topic will you simply assume that he will go for the position you support?

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Trump supporters are over thinking it. They're presuming that the policies they agree with are the 'real' positions that he would implement if elected and the rest is just electioneering to the dumb stooges who believe him when he says all the things they disagree with.

The reality is that Trump holds every position at the same time,
'nobody loves xxx more than me, but they should all be eliminated'
and the only thing he has demonstrated with any consistency, is that he is a shameless self promoter, he always acts only in his own personal interest.

Blatter

Trump to be next president is at it's shortest odds ever as of today - 11/5 on betfair. Incredibly short odds for an event that I still find unfathomable that it could happen.