2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Being against an entire religion to the point you want to ban all adherents of it from entering your country at all is kind of the complete and utter polar opposite of religious tolerance.

You are literally putting your own taint on what I said. I distinctly said Islamism which is not the same as Muslims. Trump is against Islamism which is a political ideology that places Islam as the apex of society and will enforce it with physical violence. Indonesia, Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Algeria & Tunisia are not Islamist states although they have large political groups that espouse Islamism as the corrective to the ills of society.

No, you said he was "all for religiously toleration". He wants all Muslims banned from entering the US. This is not religious tolerance. It's an open and shut matter. That you try to mask this as banning "islamism" does not change the open-and-shut case that Trump explicitly wants to be all Muslims from entering the US. This is the polar opposite of religious tolerance. That's all that there is to it.

If you want to dispute this, you need to show that he doesn't want to ban anyone based solely on their religion and that his campaign never released that statement. Until you can show that, your claim that he is "all for religious tolerance" is completely, definitively, false.

Akrasia

Christy42 wrote: »

Oh yeah Sanders has a message to spread so he may as well stay in to spread it and maybe go after super delegates.

Just taking issue with the argument that the system was rigged against him.

This is probably a semantic discussion about the difference between a biased process, and a rigged one.

In the U.S. the system as a whole is totally biased in favour of the two main parties to the exclusion of alternatives, and within the two parties, there is a strong bias in favour of the establishment

In the case of the democrats, the democratic establishment clearly favoured Hillary from the start and before most candidates had even declared their intention to run, Clinton had a lead of hundreds of 'super delegates' and her lead in the polls was down in a large part because she had huge name recognition while Sanders was totally unknown to many voters. In order to reduce the exposure Sanders would get and boost his appeal, the DNC chairperson put limits on how many debates there would be, and scheduled them at times where there would be low viewing figures.

This was confounded by the media bias that clearly supported clinton

The democratic party did everything they could to reduce the turnout in places where Sanders was strong up to and including electoral register purges that Bush would have been proud of....

The democratic primary was not about selecting the best presidential candidate, it was about the party leadership getting the preferred candidate nominated.

Christy42

eire4 wrote: »

Then she loads up all the most favourable southern states at the start so Clinton can stack up an ever bigger lead.

Wow they were sure prepped to stack the game against Sanders. They had a similar schedule in 08 so they must have been planning to give Clinton the edge in 2016 when they made that schedule.

Do you have evidence that threats to Lange's family didn't happen?

Of course Sanders supporters don't mention the easiest way to deal with issues like that would be to get rid of caucuses because a primary (even an open one) would favour Hillary.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

No, you said he was "all for religiously toleration". He wants all Muslims banned from entering the US. This is not religious tolerance. It's an open and shut matter. That you try to mask this as banning "islamism" does not change the open-and-shut case that Trump explicitly wants to be all Muslims from entering the US. This is the polar opposite of religious tolerance. That's all that there is to it.

If you want to dispute this, you need to show that he doesn't want to ban anyone based solely on their religion and that his campaign never released that statement. Until you can show that, your claim that he is "all for religious tolerance" is completely, definitively, false.

You took the world Islamism and replaced it with the word Muslims. A completely different meaning altogether. Islamism is a political ideology. Trump discriminates against ideologies. That would mean Communism, Anarchism, liberalism, Totalitarianism, Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Fascism, Stalinism, Trotskyism & Nazism.

If Trump said no Nazis were let into America he would effectively be anti German. If Trump said he does not want Hippies in America then he would round up Clinton and other so called un-Americans and deport them. The fact of the matter is he does not want dangerous Islamic fanatics inside America poisoning the minds of American Muslims. You could say Trump has a duty to ensure American Muslims remain safe in America.

Billy86

Brian, you are attempting to claim Trump's statement was about Islamists and not Muslims because he is, as you put it, "all for religious toleration". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had decided what it said before even reading it, which to be fair wouldn't put you at a disadvantage against many Trump fans.

So Brian, here is the full statement, taken from his own website. I've put mentions of the word 'Muslim' in bold - there are three. Now you go ahead and underline the words 'Islamist', 'extremist' or 'terrorist'. You know, words that differentiate the actual Islamic extremists terrorists from the other 99.995 odd percent of them.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again."
- Donald J. Trump

Hint: there are 0 of any of them.

Now, unless you have found any mentions of those words in Donald Trump's official statement from Donald Trump's official website Brian, you should just accept and admit that your notion he is only talking about Islamic extremists and not Muslims as a whole, was entirely incorrect and then just be done with it... but somehow I figure that won't be the case.

So how many of those words did you find Brian?

LuckyLloyd

Akrasia wrote: »

This is probably a semantic discussion about the difference between a biased process, and a rigged one.

In the U.S. the system as a whole is totally biased in favour of the two main parties to the exclusion of alternatives, and within the two parties, there is a strong bias in favour of the establishment

In the case of the democrats, the democratic establishment clearly favoured Hillary from the start and before most candidates had even declared their intention to run, Clinton had a lead of hundreds of 'super delegates' and her lead in the polls was down in a large part because she had huge name recognition while Sanders was totally unknown to many voters. In order to reduce the exposure Sanders would get and boost his appeal, the DNC chairperson put limits on how many debates there would be, and scheduled them at times where there would be low viewing figures.

This was confounded by the media bias that clearly supported clinton

The democratic party did everything they could to reduce the turnout in places where Sanders was strong up to and including electoral register purges that Bush would have been proud of....

The democratic primary was not about selecting the best presidential candidate, it was about the party leadership getting the preferred candidate nominated.

I don't think Political Parties ever really have internal nomination / election processes that could be termed fully free of bias. There will always be rules. Those rules will always favour established figures with a base of support within a party. However, as Trump has demonstrated (and arguably as Obama demonstrated in 2008) if you have a significant groundswell of support you can surmount those obstacles. Yes, it's unfair that you need to reach a higher threshold to win than would be required in a properly open and unbiased contest but that's the system.

To start breaking down the barriers that protect the two main parties in the US requires a consistent legal effort that needs to run and run and run with a long term goal many elections in the future in mind. And in terms of internal party rules that are "unfair" to outsider candidates, they need to be argued just as vociferously ahead of the national convention in the first year of a presidential cycle as they are during the fourth.

Bear in mind the system we have in 2016 is light years ahead of the system that existed pre 1960's. You could see the foot stomping within the Republican party during March and April as the GOP establishment realised that they weren't getting their way. There is a feeling of entitlement about nudging the primary process in the right direction. What we have is the result of a compromise, the illusion of democracy rather than any intent to fully and fairly implement it.

Ultimately the Democratic establishment will get their way because they have run themselves better over the past sixteen years and are more in touch with their base. Not fully in touch, Sander's campaign proves that. But they haven't taken the same amount of liberties that the Republican party have, and they will get Hillary over the line as a consequence.

eire4

Christy42 wrote: »

Wow they were sure prepped to stack the game against Sanders. They had a similar schedule in 08 so they must have been planning to give Clinton the edge in 2016 when they made that schedule.

Do you have evidence that threats to Lange's family didn't happen?

Of course Sanders supporters don't mention the easiest way to deal with issues like that would be to get rid of caucuses because a primary (even an open one) would favour Hillary.

I imagine they probably were trying to stack the deck for Clinton in 08 as well yes. However things have changed greatly for the worse since then. Citizens United has happened and the corporate Democratic party leadership has become even more in bed with wealthy individuals and corporations and as such bought and paid since those days.


As for Lange. I am assuming your talking about the Nevada corporate Democratic chair and the disgusting social media asbuse she was sujected to. I never once referenced her in my reply. I was talking about senator Boxer claiming she had to leave the stage as she felt threatened which was later shown to be false.


I certainly agee with you there should not be any caucuses they are a joke from a democracy standpoint. There also should be no closed primaries. There should be open primaries across the board. There also should be automatic voter registration so the kind of voter suppression we have seen in the Democratic primaries could be avoided as well as using paper ballots so the voter fraud in favour of Clinton that was found during the audit in Chicago could be avoided.

Christy42

eire4 wrote: »

I imagine they probably were trying to stack the deck for Clinton in 08 as well yes. However things have changed greatly for the worse since then. Citizens United has happened and the corporate Democratic party leadership has become even more in bed with wealthy individuals and corporations and as such bought and paid since those days.


As for Lange. I am assuming your talking about the Nevada corporate Democratic chair and the disgusting social media asbuse she was sujected to. I never once referenced her in my reply. I was talking about senator Boxer claiming she had to leave the stage as she felt threatened which was later shown to be false.


I certainly agee with you there should not be any caucuses they are a joke from a democracy standpoint. There also should be no closed primaries. There should be open primaries across the board. There also should be automatic voter registration so the kind of voter suppression we have seen in the Democratic primaries could be avoided as well as using paper ballots so the voter fraud in favour of Clinton that was found during the audit in Chicago could be avoided.

Sorry got mixed up with who they were meant to be threatening.

I really don't think they tried to stack the deck in Hillary's favour by starting off with more racially diverse states against Obama.

K-9

Billy86 wrote: »

The (American) football team is actually really interesting, as there were various issues involved - it was part of a league set up to compete indirectly against the NFL (in the same way that some soccer leagues run March - Dec, to avoid competing with the bigger leagues in Europe) - but the common thought it that Trump was by far one the biggest reason it failed. All the hallmarks of his other business failures are there - doing an incredible job and making noise and garnering interest... then being too aggressive too soon, having a lack of self control or discipline leading ultimately to massive debts, employees still unpaid 30 years later, bullying and bullying until he met someone he couldn't bully (the NFL) and everything imploded on him and those around him as the league went bust.

There is an excellent ESPN documentary on it called 'Who Killed the USFL?' which is part of a series of sports documentaries they did/are still doing that are also brilliant. Bit off topic, but would recommend several of them (from sports I like, to things like Nascar and Terry Fox's charity cancer run across Canada) as they often cover beyond just the sport itself.

That was some achievement all right.

It's a long list of business failures:

http://gawker.com/a-complete-list-of-donald-trump-s-business-disasters-1764151188

Atlantic City,
Trump Vodka,
Trump Airlines,
Trump mortgages,
Trump University,
Trump Steaks,
Trump Travel Search engine,
Trump the Game,
Trump Magazine,
Trump Ice,
Football team,
Tour de Trump cycling race,
Trump on the ocean restaurant,
Trump vitamin pyramid scheme,
Trump talk radio station,
Trump intern company.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Brian, you are attempting to claim Trump's statement was about Islamists and not Muslims because he is, as you put it, "all for religious toleration". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had decided what it said before even reading it, which to be fair wouldn't put you at a disadvantage against many Trump fans.

So Brian, here is the full statement, taken from his own website. I've put mentions of the word 'Muslim' in bold - there are three. Now you go ahead and underline the words 'Islamist', 'extremist' or 'terrorist'. You know, words that differentiate the actual Islamic extremists terrorists from the other 99.995 odd percent of them.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

Hint: there are 0 of any of them.

Now, unless you have found any mentions of those words in Donald Trump's official statement from Donald Trump's official website Brian, you should just accept and admit that your notion he is only talking about Islamic extremists and not Muslims as a whole, was entirely incorrect and then just be done with it... but somehow I figure that won't be the case.

So how many of those words did you find Brian?

He references Jihad which is a virulent ideology on a par with the excesses of totalitarianism. It preaches that all Muslims regardless of the religious backgrounds must wage holy war against non-believers. These people should not be allowed into America or into Europe at all.

We use terms like Islamism and extremists to describe huge groups of people in society and is very inexact. Islamists are a menace to America but they Islamism is a International problem. Countries with large minority religious populations are also under threat from Jihadists.

These Jihadists are all emanating from the Gulf Kingdoms and have free reign in the US. Jihadists are the worst form of Islamists. They have no ideology under than waging war and using Islam as an excuse for causing atrocities. They are dangerous and anti-American.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Kristol has spent his existence being full of sh*t though..... chances are nothing will come of it.

The evangelicals had Cruz & he failed.

They can wait 4 more years.

Black Swan

Failed Trump University and the anticipated trials against defendant Donald Trump in the states of California and New York were once again on the US national news Wednesday 1 June 2016.

"Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money" testified Ronald Schnackenberg, former Trump University sales manager.

Trump University "playbooks" used by university salespersons and ordered by District Judge Gonzalo Curielas to be used as evidence in the trial against Trump University and its defendant-founder Donald Trump reads: "This sales process is based on managing the emotions of the client by focusing on the psychology of the sale. The metaphor we use for this process is the Roller Coaster of emotions."

What happens if you substitute "client" and "sale" with "voter" and "election," would this exemplify Trump's "playbook" for the 2016 election? An appeal to the "emotions" and "psychology" of students to encourage them to enroll in (2010 failed) Trump University, and now appealing to the "emotions" and "psychology" of voters to elect Trump in 2016? There certainly has been a "Roller Coaster of emotions" triggered by Donald Trump immediately following such statements from his political pulpit: "Torture works," banning Muslims, prosecuting women who get abortions, mocking disabled reporter Serge Kovaleski, "He's not a war hero" (Arizona Sen. John McCain), "blood coming out of her, wherever" (Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly), "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists" (Mexicans).

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

Failed Trump University and the anticipated trials against defendant Donald Trump in the states of California and New York were once again on the US national news Wednesday 1 June 2016.

"Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money" testified Ronald Schnackenberg, former Trump University sales manager.

Trump University "playbooks" used by university salespersons and ordered by District Judge Gonzalo Curielas to be used as evidence in the trial against Trump University and its defendant-founder Donald Trump reads: "This sales process is based on managing the emotions of the client by focusing on the psychology of the sale. The metaphor we use for this process is the Roller Coaster of emotions."

What happens if you substitute "client" and "sale" with "voter" and "election," would this exemplify Trump's "playbook" for the 2016 election? An appeal to the "emotions" and "psychology" of students to encourage them to enroll in (2010 failed) Trump University, and now appealing to the "emotions" and "psychology" of voters to elect Trump in 2016? There certainly has been a "Roller Coaster of emotions" triggered by Donald Trump immediately following such statements from his political pulpit: "Torture works," banning Muslims, prosecuting women who get abortions, mocking disabled reporter Serge Kovaleski, "He's not a war hero" (Arizona Sen. John McCain), "blood coming out of her, wherever" (Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly), "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists" (Mexicans).

You present a damning picture of Donald Trump. He is also the guy that speaks for a lot of jobless Americans layoffs, a direct result of Globalization. He is demanding an end to exploitation of Americans regardless of religion, race or ethnicity so long as they are American citizens first. Trump also has nothing but contempt for the existing laws that have enabled terrorism to rise across the planet, namely no death penalty for certain extremely serious crimes. If countries around the world were allowed issue death sentences to Jihadists then Saudi Arabia might reconsider sending terrorists to various regions of the globe.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You present a damning picture of Donald Trump. He is also the guy that speaks for a lot of jobless Americans layoffs, a direct result of Globalization.

You don't find it inconsistent when Donald Trump talks about how globalisation takes jobs away from American workers, while Trump himself imports clothing and accessories for the "Trump Collection" made in Mexico and China thereby taking advantage of the reduced labour costs found in the global marketplace? What about Trump's heavy overseas investments in hotels, golf courses, and other businesses? According to Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan-Flint: “For Trump to operate, outsource and invest globally while criticizing companies like Ford for doing the same is the ultimate hypocrisy."

Harvard professor and trade expert Robert Lawrence analyzed over 800 items in the Ivanka Trump fashion line. There are shoes, dresses, purses and scarves. All are "imported." Apparently the future presidential daughter, who campaigns for her father Donald Trump, has no problems with profiting from globalisation.

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

You don't find it inconsistent when Donald Trump talks about how globalisation takes jobs away from American workers, while Trump himself imports clothing and accessories for the "Trump Collection" made in Mexico and China thereby taking advantage of the reduced labour costs found in the global marketplace? What about Trump's heavy overseas investments in hotels, golf courses, and other businesses? According to Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan-Flint: “For Trump to operate, outsource and invest globally while criticizing companies like Ford for doing the same is the ultimate hypocrisy."

Harvard professor and trade expert Robert Lawrence analyzed over 800 items in the Ivanka Trump fashion line. There are shoes, dresses, purses and scarves. All are "imported."

Trump as Politician(National interest) ≠ Trump as Businessman(Self interest)

That should hold true for every politician, only it doesnt, which facilitates the rise of Trump who advocates for national interest.

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Trump as Politician(National interest) ≠ Trump as Businessman(Self interest).

So what Trump does, and what Trump says are 2 different things?

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He references Jihad which is a virulent ideology on a par with the excesses of totalitarianism.

Where does it says 'extremists', 'terrorists' or 'Islamists', Brian? Does it say it anywhere, Brian?

It preaches that all Muslims regardless of the religious backgrounds must wage holy war against non-believers. These people should not be allowed into America or into Europe at all.

Brian, this word salad is not fully coherent. Are you trying to say you think all Muslims are bound to Jihad and thus none should be allowed in Europe or the US? Despite the fact that 99.995% of them are not?

If that is what you are trying to say Brian, thank you for letting us know your true colours and that you also enjoy discriminating against people based solely on their religious beliefs. You seem to be struggling with this one, Brian, but that would put you right up there with Trump for being the exact opposite of religiously tolerant

We use terms like Islamism and extremists to describe huge groups of people in society and is very inexact.

Where did Trump's statement say Islamists, Brian? Ignoring the questions I put to you in the last post only makes you look more and more like a clueless fool. I even said in that post you would try to ignore it, because you can't answer it, Brian.

Brian, where did Trump's statement from his official website say anything about 'Islamists' or 'extremists'? Because it kept mentioning Muslims, Muslims, Muslims... not extremists.

Islamists are a menace to America but they Islamism is a International problem. Countries with large minority religious populations are also under threat from Jihadists.

Where did Trump mention Islamists, Brian? Where did he mention anything that wasn't attempting to blanket ban all Muslims from entering, Brian?

These Jihadists are all emanating from the Gulf Kingdoms and have free reign in the US. Jihadists are the worst form of Islamists. They have no ideology under than waging war and using Islam as an excuse for causing atrocities. They are dangerous and anti-American.

Brian, I'm going to ask you what I asked in my last post all over again.














Brian, you are attempting to claim Trump's statement was about Islamists and not Muslims because he is, as you put it, "all for religious toleration". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had decided what it said before even reading it, which to be fair wouldn't put you at a disadvantage against many Trump fans.

So Brian, here is the full statement, taken from his own website. I've put mentions of the word 'Muslim' in bold - there are three. Now you go ahead and underline the words 'Islamist', 'extremist' or 'terrorist'. You know, words that differentiate the actual Islamic extremists terrorists from the other 99.995 odd percent of them.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

Hint: there are 0 of any of them.

Now, unless you have found any mentions of those words in Donald Trump's official statement from Donald Trump's official website Brian, you should just accept and admit that your notion he is only talking about Islamic extremists and not Muslims as a whole, was entirely incorrect and then just be done with it... but somehow I figure that won't be the case. Brian, I think you are going to keep trying to ignore this but the fact is, you are not good at shifting subjects.

You said Trump was only talking about extremists, terrorists and Islamists Brian. So Brian, where does he mention any of those three words in his statement above?

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

So what Trump does, and what Trump says are 2 different things?

All to be taken from that is that Trump hates Muslims, foreigners and women who don't shut up and know their place, and some people will go to any possible length to defend and cheer-lead for him because of it. Almost every time you see someone supporting Trump vehemently on any forum, they have a vitriolic hate for women, foreigners or Muslims (or all three) in their posting history.

They tried defending his stances at first, but after a while it became so transparent and Trump's hypocrisies, flip-flops and lack of any substance became so indefensible that they've now reverted back to "I love him -BECAUSE- he is a liar" and "just because he wants to impose rules doesn't mean he should have to follow them". The fact that they think people actually buy that is even more ridiculous, it's every bit as plausible as "my dog ate my homework".

It's long beyond being beyond a parody at this stage, basically. It's clear why most on here who support Trump, do so.

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

So what Trump does, and what Trump says are 2 different things?

No, I expect businessmen to be rapacious capitalists, I dont expect it of politicians. So far Trump has a clean slate(said all the right things as regards borders, trade, nationalism), his opponent does not.

Akrasia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No, I expect businessmen to be rapacious capitalists, I dont expect it of politicians. So far Trump has a clean slate(said all the right things as regards borders, trade, nationalism), his opponent does not.

There is no hope if this is the logic that you find convincing.

Trump has a lifetime worth of a track record of lying, cheating, ripping people off, evicting people from their homes, exporting jobs abroad, contacts with mobsters and money laundering convictions, multiple bankruptcies, many many legal actions filed against him, and by him and his companies (3500 legal actions that we know about)

All of this is just hand waved away because he wasn't a politician then, and he gets a 'clean state' going forward?????

That's utterly ludicrous. Everyone knows that the speeches politicians make while electioneering are the least honest and trustworthy words they're ever likely to say, but you're ignoring the mountains of evidence pointing to his terrible leadership characteristics and choosing only to believe his stump speeches (and even then, only the bits that you personally agree with while ignoring all the bits you don't like......)

Words fail me.

ancapailldorcha

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump has a lifetime worth of a track record of lying, cheating, ripping people off, evicting people from their homes, exporting jobs abroad, contacts with mobsters and money laundering convictions, multiple bankruptcies, many many legal actions filed against him, and by him and his companies (3500 legal actions that we know about)

Indeed. I believe there is a term in the industry, "Trump discount".

JPNelsforearm

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no hope if this is the logic that you find convincing.

Trump has a lifetime worth of a track record of lying, cheating, ripping people off, evicting people from their homes, exporting jobs abroad, contacts with mobsters and money laundering convictions, multiple bankruptcies, many many legal actions filed against him, and by him and his companies (3500 legal actions that we know about)

All of this is just hand waved away because he wasn't a politician then, and he gets a 'clean state' going forward?????

That's utterly ludicrous. Everyone knows that the speeches politicians make while electioneering are the least honest and trustworthy words they're ever likely to say, but you're ignoring the mountains of evidence pointing to his terrible leadership characteristics and choosing only to believe his stump speeches (and even then, only the bits that you personally agree with while ignoring all the bits you don't like......)

Words fail me.

If he is lying now, what difference does it make? It'll just make him another lying politician, the male Hillary Clinton, nothing lost nothing gained. You are voting for a loser in Clinton, and you know you are, at least with Trump he is not a politician and he says anti globalist/nationalist things, there is a modicum of hope there.

Its like when Obama was elected, only Trump actually is saying things to make you somewhat hopeful of actual change. The worst case scenario if Trump gets in and is lying, is four years of the status quo, thats it, voting for Trump is a no lose proposition.

Billy86

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no hope if this is the logic that you find convincing.

Trump has a lifetime worth of a track record of lying, cheating, ripping people off, evicting people from their homes, exporting jobs abroad, contacts with mobsters and money laundering convictions, multiple bankruptcies, many many legal actions filed against him, and by him and his companies (3500 legal actions that we know about)

All of this is just hand waved away because he wasn't a politician then, and he gets a 'clean state' going forward?????

That's utterly ludicrous. Everyone knows that the speeches politicians make while electioneering are the least honest and trustworthy words they're ever likely to say, but you're ignoring the mountains of evidence pointing to his terrible leadership characteristics and choosing only to believe his stump speeches (and even then, only the bits that you personally agree with while ignoring all the bits you don't like......)

Words fail me.

Not only will they attempt to claim anything he did prior to declaring he would run is completely irrelevant, they also try to claim it is fully relevant because it shows he would be a good president (and then proceed to ignore all of his many poor practices, business failures, etc because they are irrelevant as he wasn't a politician back then).

Like I said, it's beyond parody and a quick view on anyone's posting history who takes that line is all-but-guaranteed to have a whole lot of Islamophobia, MRAisms/misogyny, or at the very least, a strong and deep-seated fear/hatred of foreigners/others.

Brian?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If he is lying now, what difference does it make? It'll just make him another lying politician, the male Hillary Clinton, nothing lost nothing gained. You are voting for a loser in Clinton, and you know you are, at least with Trump he is not a politician and he says anti globalist/nationalist things, there is a modicum of hope there.

Its like when Obama was elected, only Trump actually is saying things to make you somewhat hopeful of actual change. The worst case scenario if Trump gets in and is lying, is four years of the status quo, thats it, voting for Trump is a no lose proposition.

The worst case scenario is that Trump is telling the truth.

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

Like I said, it's beyond parody and a quick view on anyone's posting history who takes that line is all-but-guaranteed to have a whole lot of Islamophobia, MRAisms/misogyny, or at the very least, a strong and deep-seated fear/hatred of foreigners/others.

Who is the bolded aimed at? Virtue signalling your fellow travelers? No one cares at this point, I certainly dont, islamophobia doesnt exist, ditto misogyny, xenophobia, its pretty much meaningless terminology in the post Trump landscape.

Your post/PC buzzword content, is much why Trump is constantly gaining support. Its amazing that you consider PC guilt tripping/smug moralism a viable tactic in light of Trump clinching the nomination, which he clinched in large part due to refuting PC as an ideology.

JPNelsforearm

Brian? wrote: »

The worst case scenario is that Trump is telling the truth.

About what? If he is only telling the truth about borders, globalism, thats great news, if he lies about everything else, he's still better than the alternative.

Saipanne

Is Sanders totally out now?

PopePalpatine

Saipanne wrote: »

Is Sanders totally out now?

No, Hillary is (including superdelegates expected to support her) 80 delegates short of the nomination. FiveThirtyEight gives her a 94% chance of winning California's primary: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/

Saipanne

PopePalpatine wrote: »

No, Hillary is (including superdelegates expected to support her) 80 delegates short of the nomination. FiveThirtyEight gives her a 94% chance of winning California's primary: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/

Effectively out, then!