2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

InTheTrees

Manic Moran wrote: »

I assure you, gerrymandering is in no way confined to the Republicans.

No. And hopefully it will be a lot harder after last years supreme court decision denying Arizona's attempt to close down its own independent commission.

InTheTrees

I think the incident that really brought it to a head was Tom Delay in Texas in the early 2000's

The republicans basically redrew district maps to carve up any Democratic Party majorities. The Justice Dept had to be called in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting

Brian?

FA Hayek wrote: »

Oh really?






Ahem!
Its OK to bat for a team but at least come clean.

This post is completely facetious and you should realise it. I am outlining what the Democrats need to do to stop Trump. It's a horrible choice to make for voters: A corporate shill or a demagogue. Go democracy

The real in this election is the American people. If I have to pick a team it's the working/middle class people in the USA.

JPNelsforearm

Brian? wrote: »

This post is completely facetious and you should realise it. I am outlining what the Democrats need to do to stop Trump. It's a horrible choice to make for voters: A corporate shill or a demagogue. Go democracy

The real in this election is the American people. If I have to pick a team it's the working/middle class people in the USA.

Which most definitely will not be served by Hillary, with Trump, it might be.

Phonehead

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Which most definitely will not be served by Hillary, with Trump, it might be.

This is what I don't get, nobody could argue that Clinton will be good for the working class.

BoatMad

Phonehead wrote: »

This is what I don't get, nobody could argue that Clinton will be good for the working class.

And a loud mouthed billionaire will be

.......

ancapailldorcha

Up the standard of debate please.

JPNelsforearm

Just saw this on FB, interesting gawk into the leftist mindset, speech that they dont like is to be met with violence until said speech stops. What the end game for this strategy is, in light of the probable disparity in armed supporters of each camp and that a heavier armed counterpunch might come in his direction, is not touched upon. The author genuinely seems to believe he can beat up Trump supporters enough, that either Trump will drop out, or they will change their opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/sorry-liberals-a-violent-_b_10316186.html

The rise of Donald Trump has exposed the frightening underbelly of America’s foulest tendencies. Our racism, nativism, xenophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, ableism, and propensity toward authoritarianism have been laid bare. Reactions from those who stand opposed to these manifestations of oppression have varied from calm condemnation and routine peaceful protests, to blockades of roads and borderline riotous outbursts, including sporadic violence in various cities.

"—whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance—there’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this."

Understanding European anti-fascists use of violent tactics to shut down large rallies from White Supremacists can be illustrative here.


Its Trump v This^

I know who I support.

K-9

That's dangerous talk!

Seriously it is and is no way to react to Trump's comments about protestors, paying legal bills etc.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

This post is completely facetious and you should realise it. I am outlining what the Democrats need to do to stop Trump. It's a horrible choice to make for voters: A corporate shill or a demagogue. Go democracy

The real in this election is the American people. If I have to pick a team it's the working/middle class people in the USA.

This election is showing in very stark reality that the US political system is broken and corrupted and very close to being beyond repair given that the country has arguably already become an Oligarchy.
On the right there is the option of the Libertarian Party and on the left the Green Party. But the reality is the 2 corrupt parties the Republican and the Democrats that run the cartel of power in DC write rules and make things all but impossible for either of those parties to really challenge them on a national scale or any other party to emerge for that matter.

JPNelsforearm

K-9 wrote: »

That's dangerous talk!

Seriously it is and is no way to react to Trump's comments about protestors, paying legal bills etc.

Its all fun and games when you are ganging up on someone......... until that someone is concealed carrying. Its fine, as in safe, pulling the "political violence is justified" card in Europe, where the person you are thumping cant even carry pepper spray. Trying that in the states? with concealed carry? you surround some guys car( eg 5:00 odd mins in) and he is liable to produce an AR15.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t7PnrelFdY

If these "protests" continue in that vein, you can guarantee two things, Trump will get elected and someone will get shot.

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

No. And hopefully it will be a lot harder after last years supreme court decision denying Arizona's attempt to close down its own independent commission.

My personal favourite is Chicago's fourth congressional district (and hey, there's a pin and all on Humboldt Park, right where I spent my J1 visa years back!).

KingBrian2

skywanderer wrote: »

Hopefully Sanders will run Independent and split the Democratic vote handing it to Trump. Hillary deserves no less. Sanders won't be elected and in an ideal world Trump and Sanders might run together with Sanders as VP but it would be too much for hardline Republicans to swallow and they might vote Hillary instead. Hillary Clinton is worse than G.W. Bush in my opinion.

The Bernie campaign has been stating that their have been voting irregularities in the Democratic primaries. This has been a common theme among some of his supporters. Not sure what to make of it. Democrats are not known for their foul tactics. Their should be a National body to handle such complaints of voting irregularities.

http://boingboing.net/2016/04/19/ny-primary-mess-robbed-some-of.html

FA Hayek

Brian? wrote: »

This post is completely facetious and you should realise it. I am outlining what the Democrats need to do to stop Trump. It's a horrible choice to make for voters: A corporate shill or a demagogue. Go democracy

The real in this election is the American people. If I have to pick a team it's the working/middle class people in the USA.

So bluster and high morals aside, you are picking a team hiding behind the fact by saying that your team is the working/middle class. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the working class are going to vote Trump and the vast majority of the establishment and the elites are going to side with Hillary.

Hmmm, you can say what you want but the fact remains that you are going to bat for Democrats even though you have denied twice that you are going to bat for a team At least be honest about it and not engage in cognitive dissonance. It seems you are in denial even with yourself.

InTheTrees

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the working class are going to vote Trump and the vast majority of the establishment and the elites are going to side with Hillary.

What? Were did you get that from? Really, the "vast majority of the working class" are going to vote for trump?

I'm not establishment or elite, neither is anyone I know and they're not voting for trump. I'm out in a west coast blue state though.

Black Swan

Trump is a defendant for alleged fraud occurring at his failed Trump University that he founded 2005, and which closed 2010. Trump is scheduled to go to trial November 2016 immediately following the 8 November election. Trump's lawyer (Daniel Petrocelli) aiding him in his defense donated the maximum allowed to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign January 2016 (after Trump hired him). Furthermore, Petrocelli's prestigious and nationally recognized law firm O'Melveny & Myers had given nearly $20,000 to Clinton's campaign. It's interesting to note that while Trump has claimed that US Judge Gonzalo Curiel had a (Mexican ancestry and law association) conflict of interest, no conflict of interest claims were perceived by Trump in regard to his defending attorney and law firm, both favouring and donating to Hillary Clinton.

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

It's interesting to note that while Trump has claimed that US Judge Gonzalo Curiel had a (Mexican ancestry and law association) conflict of interest, no conflict of interest claims were perceived by Trump in regard to his defending attorney and law firm, both favouring and donating to Hillary Clinton.

Also worth noting the trump legal team have not filed any legal motions to have the judge removed from the case.

Trumps comments seem to be entirely aimed at alienating Hispanics.

Brian?

InTheTrees wrote: »

Also worth noting the trump legal team have not filed any legal motions to have the judge removed from the case.

Trumps comments seem to be entirely aimed at alienating Hispanics.

I don't think he was aiming to alienate Hispanics, he's already lost them. He's continuing to blow the dog whistle so his base remains committed. In order to win the general Trump needs to run towards the middle, he needs to keep the base committed when that happens.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump is a defendant for alleged fraud occurring at his failed Trump University that he founded 2005, and which closed 2010. Trump is scheduled to go to trial November 2016 immediately following the 8 November election. Trump's lawyer (Daniel Petrocelli) aiding him in his defense donated the maximum allowed to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign January 2016 (after Trump hired him). Furthermore, Petrocelli's prestigious and nationally recognized law firm O'Melveny & Myers had given nearly $20,000 to Clinton's campaign. It's interesting to note that while Trump has claimed that US Judge Gonzalo Curiel had a (Mexican ancestry and law association) conflict of interest, no conflict of interest claims were perceived by Trump in regard to his defending attorney and law firm, both favouring and donating to Hillary Clinton.

Apples and oranges. Trump hiring a law firm that donated to Clinton has no bearing on the case. A judge that distributed scholarships to illegal aliens and belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens' "human rights" are violated, whose name translates to THE RACE, and who is a Hillary Clinton supporter, DOES! The judge should have recused himself from the case.

Brian?

FA Hayek wrote: »

So bluster and high morals aside, you are picking a team hiding behind the fact by saying that your team is the working/middle class. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the working class are going to vote Trump and the vast majority of the establishment and the elites are going to side with Hillary.

Bluster? What bluster? I won't leave high morals aside for any reason, thanks anyway. You know who elects every single president? The working and middle class, there simply aren't enough "elites" to elect a president. Yet Hilary is poking ahead of Trump. Explain this conclusion that most working and middle class people prefer Trump please.

Hmmm, you can say what you want but the fact remains that you are going to bat for Democrats even though you have denied twice that you are going to bat for a team At least be honest about it and not engage in cognitive dissonance. It seems you are in denial even with yourself.

I can say what I want and you can draw ass backwards conclusions all you want. First you accused me of being a smug liberal when I'm not a liberal. Then you accused me of approving of violence when I'm a pacifist. Now I'm accused of "engaging in cognitive dissonance ". I'm not sure you know what cognitive dissonance means.

I am not on Hilary Clintons team. I will not actively support her. Give the choice between her and Trump , I believe she would make a better president. I believe this because Trump will make a terrible president. I don't think Hilary will make a good president, but the nonsense that is US politics leaves her as the only option in my eyes.

eire4

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Bernie campaign has been stating that their have been voting irregularities in the Democratic primaries. This has been a common theme among some of his supporters. Not sure what to make of it. Democrats are not known for their foul tactics. Their should be a National body to handle such complaints of voting irregularities.

http://boingboing.net/2016/04/19/ny-primary-mess-robbed-some-of.html

Well certainly there was major voter suppression in New York and in Illinois particuarly in Chicago. The Republicans are more well know for their voter suppression efforts at the national level but the Democrats are not adverse to voter suppression when it serves the interests of the corrupt corporate Democratic leadership. Voter suppression is a very good window really into how corrupt both the Republican and Democratic parties are today and how little interest they have in serving the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.

Black Swan

FAILED Trump University says a lot about Donald Trump, as do his attempts to discredit a US Judge that ordered defendant Trump be tried immediately following 8 November 2016 general election on alleged fraud charges.

Amerika wrote: »

The judge should have recused himself from the case.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (Republican) concluded that Trump's statements about US Judge Gonzalo Curiel represented a "textbook definition of a racist comment."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican) concluded about Trump's comments about US Judge Gonzalo Curiel: "He uttered a series of outrageous and unacceptable statements over the last week."

Addressing Trump's statements about US Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Senator Mark Kirk (Republican) commented: “I have spent my life building bridges and tearing down barriers — not building walls. That’s why I find Donald Trump’s belief that an American-born judge of Mexican descent is incapable of fairly presiding over his case is not only dead wrong, it is un-American.”

KingBrian2

Does anyone know what Clinton's position is on American trade deals? Trump says he will make America Great Again, whatever that means on the other hand Clinton wishes to retain the trade agreements that are ongoing. In other words the New York Bankers get a free pass without recouping the American Taxpayer. Bernie spoke of taxing the Bankers not even Clinton was willing to breakup the banks. Even if she does win the Presidency the Trump supporters are not onboard with the prying eyes of the Federal Government.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

The judge should have recused himself from the case.

It would be a sad day for american justice if racist defendants can demand judges be replaced because they're not the same race as the defendant.

JPNelsforearm

InTheTrees wrote: »

It would be a sad day for american justice if racist defendants can demand judges be replaced because they're not the same race as the defendant.

Its happened in the past, the pro Palestinian groups have called for this.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/186718/jewish-judges-recusal

Akrasia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its happened in the past, the pro Palestinian groups have called for this.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/186718/jewish-judges-recusal

There's a big difference between a Jewish judge who has publicly described himself as a zionist hearing cases involving Palestinians accused of attacking the Jewish homeland, and an American judge of Mexican heritage hearing a case about an American accused of running a fraudulent university.

The Trump University case has nothing to do with the Trump wall or all of his other racist statements. And the Judges statements on the case stand on their own merit and are valid regardless of whether the judge is a fan of Trump or not.

JPNelsforearm

Akrasia wrote: »

There's a big difference between a Jewish judge who has publicly described himself as a zionist hearing cases involving Palestinians accused of attacking the Jewish homeland, and an American judge of Mexican heritage hearing a case about an American accused of running a fraudulent university.

The Trump University case has nothing to do with the Trump wall or all of his other racist statements. And the Judges statements on the case stand on their own merit and are valid regardless of whether the judge is a fan of Trump or not.

The judge in question explicitly identifies by his mexican/hispanic background and is a member of a group called "the race", for Trump not to make bluster about this, when said judge "mistakenly" released sealed court records, it would be remiss of him, anyway, this issue is essentially over until after the election, its a non issue as far as any "revelations" that will sink Trumps campaign. The key issue, whether Trump was an active and knowing participant in the scam, will only be decided in court.

Akrasia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The judge in question explicitly identifies by his mexican/hispanic background and is a member of a group called "the race", for Trump not to make bluster about this, when said judge "mistakenly" released sealed court records, it would be remiss of him, anyway, this issue is essentially over until after the election, its a non issue as far as any "revelations" that will sink Trumps campaign. The key issue, whether Trump was an active and knowing participant in the scam, will only be decided in court.

Trump says he's not a racist, and he says his policies against mexico are not racist, but he still argues that a judge from Mexican heritage cannot be unbiased against him because he's a proud Mexican/American.

What basis would the judge be biased against him if Trump's policies and statements weren't racist against Mexico?

The Trump university case has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico. The judge's Mexican heritage has nothing to do with the case, The fact that Trump bought up the race of the judge in order to discredit his ruling is just further evidence of how racist and opportunistic and dishonest and self serving he is, and what a terrible awful president he would be.

JPNelsforearm

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump says he's not a racist, and he says his policies against mexico are not racist, but he still argues that a judge from Mexican heritage cannot be unbiased against him because he's a proud Mexican/American.

What basis would the judge be biased against him if Trump's policies and statements weren't racist against Mexico?

The Trump university case has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico. The judge's Mexican heritage has nothing to do with the case, The fact that Trump bought up the race of the judge in order to discredit his ruling is just further evidence of how racist and opportunistic and dishonest and self serving he is, and what a terrible awful president he would be.

Closing the border and deporting illegals is not a racist policy, no matter what the Mexican flag waving thugs who beat up Trump supporters seem to think. A sovereign nation has borders, or it is not a nation.

Trumps statements cannot be racist "against mexico", Mexican is not a race. However, many Hispanics feel they have an inherent right to live in the US, in fact there are groups set up to explicitly advocate for that right, like LaRaza, who overtly promote reconquista into states like California, and the demographic swing would indicate those policies are working. The judge, as a member of La Raza, and someone who has awarded scholarships to illegals(as opposed to reporting them to ICE and having them deported, following the law), clearly has a bias. Does that impair his judgement if he feels as you do, that Trump is "racist blah blah blah"? Who knows, his release of sealed documents is highly suspicious.

You said its ok to disqualify a zionist judge, once you go down that rabbit hole, you cannot have any objections, would you think its ok to disqualify a white nationalist judge? So why should a hispanic nationalist judge be treated any differently?

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The judge, as a member of La Raza, and someone who has awarded scholarships to illegals(as opposed to reporting them to ICE and having them deported, following the law), clearly has a bias. Does that impair his judgement if he feels as you do...

Trump University litigation, with founder Donald Trump as a defendant, has been plodding along since 2010 in California. If the above statement is a valid legal argument, why has Trump's defending lawyer and his nationally prestigious law firm O’Melveny & Myers NOT FILED a motion asking US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel to step aside, or recuse himself? Simply because this Trump judge-bias argument has no substance in fact in a US court of law, would more than likely be ruled as a "frivolous" legal argument, could have severe and adverse consequences for the Trump University defense, and only represents the repetitious and typical campaign spin so frequently attributed to Trump's proclamations from his political pulpit; whereupon he attempts to smear and discredit the reputation of someone who does not follow his orders, or march to the beat of his drum.