2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Americano said:
Read my post again. "I think Trump is perceived as strong on both counts by voters". I'm not aware of any specific policies myself, aside from having the balls to say what's on his mind.

What if he actually turns out to be a very good president? What if he brings prosperity and unity to our society and elevates America's place in the world? It could happen, and I won't be upset at you for resisting that possibility at first :)
Click to expand...


Man you are funny, too obvious of a wum tho.
 
Trump has surpassed 1237 pledged delegates and has clinched the nomination.

Mark my words, he will win this election in a landslide.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Trump has surpassed 1237 pledged delegates and has clinched the nomination.

Mark my words, he will win this election in a landslide.
Click to expand...

He could definitely win if he's up against someone with equally bad negative ratings - mainly because bad things seem to not affect him whereas they will definitely affect her adversely.
 
Spock said:
No, I don't, but I understand why Reagan is misunderstood by some to be a mean-spirited, racist fukk. The case for this belief is not unsound. He supported Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those 3-4 months in 1964 from the time Goldwater opposed the CRA on grounds of "states' rights" to the moment he gave his nomination acceptance speech in San Francisco where he uttered the phrase "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice." (a phrase which my mentor in college and graduate school wrote, which I argued with him endlessly perfectly contradicted Lincoln) where a cringeworthy period in the history of the Republican Party. But Reagan was no extremist (he raised taxes, liberalized abortion laws, liberalized welfare benefits, and saw through the enactment of numerous environmental laws in California) and was far more a pragmatist than the ideologue the left paints him as. But it was useful for fundraising purposes to demonize Reagan and to this day he's by some to be the radical pre-Trumpian. (Reagan had many faults, but extremism was not one of them.)

Your general contempt of the Republican today, however, is well taken. This is a party that Reagan would not recognize and would not welcome him. Rep voters over the last 6 months could not tolerate even a right-wing lunatic like Cruz and laid waste to its moderates. We all have our own interpretations of what these Rep voters want and I have my own, but whichever one of us right (and it may be "all of the above") I want nothing to do with it.

Let's see how this plays out. If in the fall the Republican Party "establishment" genuinely embraces Trump, I will weep with Lincoln, Roosevelt and, yes, Reagan. If instead it keeps stiff-arms Trump even as it acknowledges that he's the nominee, fair and square so to speak, I may remain in and do what I can to rebuild it out of the ashes Trump will have left it in.

Either way, I'm in for Gary Johnson for now although I will leave the door open for Hillary to convince me she has an agenda worthy of a major party presidential nominee. As far as I can tell, her only rationale for seeking the office is that she wants it. That's not good enough. But she's by some distance the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

Bollocks!!!

I think he would recognise this party perfectly. And be proud of it. Hold it like a dear grandchild. He´d endorse the outright racism and dog whistling. He´d be very down with suppressing the minority and young people´s vote. He´d love the still fresh free market anti government blah blah blah still mouth breathed as fervent ideology. He´d adore the way Republicans have done all they can to throw a monkey wrench in negotiations with Iran, just like he treasonously did in the run up to the 1980 election. He would love their anti environmentalism with passion. He´d love the "actor" tv personality of Trump. In the video of infinite boredom he and Trump appear as very ugly bobsy twins. I´m sure the Tea Party would be his freedom fighters.

I don´t think anyone who was politically conscious in the 80s USA (and California before during his governorship) would think Reagan doesn´t recognise Republican nowadays. This is Reagan´s baby. A very modern, nasty adult he raised with loving nasty care.
 
Americano said:
I'm dead serious. I'm voting for him, even though he has upset me with some of the stuff he has said. I got over it, just like a lot of other people have.
Click to expand...


I feel so bad for my US based friends and family....imagine having to choose between Hillary and Trump.
Either way the country is fecked.
 
@Americano

"Having the balls to say what he thinks"


The reason this is considered good is because most politicians are focus-grouped and bland. Here comes someone who says outrageous things apparently as soon as he thinks of them. Honest Trump?
No. The fact is that saying stupid things is a political asset to him. He says stupid things because that's his trademark. Even he acknowledges this when he promised to start "acting presidential" and toning down. Why doesn't that negate his "balls to say what he thinks" advantage? All he has is the "balls" to say what is politically expedient. It so happened that outrageous statements were working out great during the primary (and may during the general).

Finally, what about the content of what he says? He has flip-flopped on every major issue as much as Hillary. Social security, Iraq, minimum wage, the NRA. Then the bigotry towards women and Mexicans. If he indeed "says it as he sees it", are those the views of a president?
 
Raoul said:
He could definitely win if he's up against someone with equally bad negative ratings - mainly because bad things seem to not affect him whereas they will definitely affect her adversely.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.
 
Wtf does having the balls to say what you think have to do with anything? Kate Hopkins says what she thinks. Abu Hamza says what he thinks. What exactly is good about that? You move past that and look at the content of what he says, which is farcical and outrageous.
 
berbatrick said:
@Americano

"Having the balls to say what he thinks"


The reason this is considered good is because most politicians are focus-grouped and bland. Here comes someone who says outrageous things apparently as soon as he thinks of them. Honest Trump?
No. The fact is that saying stupid things is a political asset to him. He says stupid things because that's his trademark. Even he acknowledges this when he promised to start "acting presidential" and toning down. Why doesn't that negate his "balls to say what he thinks" advantage? All he has is the "balls" to say what is politically expedient. It so happened that outrageous statements were working out great during the primary (and may during the general).

Finally, what about the content of what he says? He has flip-flopped on every major issue as much as Hillary. Social security, Iraq, minimum wage, the NRA. Then the bigotry towards women and Mexicans. If he indeed "says it as he sees it", are those the views of a president?
Click to expand...

There's something to be said for that. True many other people also say what they think, some of which are pretty bad people as Zarlak pointed out. In the case of Trump and Sanders, they seem to depart from the usual methodology of most politicians who use analytics to determine areas where they can pick up support, then develop policy positions that cater to the affected groups. The people who like Trump do so because he's not "politically correct" and says what he wants. Likewise, the people who like Bernie do so because his positions don't blow with the wind, they are grounded in the principle of solidarity, and as such, he doesn't flip flop like Hillary does, which people obviously like.
 
berbatrick said:
@Americano

"Having the balls to say what he thinks"

The reason this is considered good is because most politicians are focus-grouped and bland. Here comes someone who says outrageous things apparently as soon as he thinks of them. Honest Trump?
No. The fact is that saying stupid things is a political asset to him. He says stupid things because that's his trademark. Even he acknowledges this when he promised to start "acting presidential" and toning down. Why doesn't that negate his "balls to say what he thinks" advantage? All he has is the "balls" to say what is politically expedient. It so happened that outrageous statements were working out great during the primary (and may during the general).

Finally, what about the content of what he says? He has flip-flopped on every major issue as much as Hillary. Social security, Iraq, minimum wage, the NRA. Then the bigotry towards women and Mexicans. If he indeed "says it as he sees it", are those the views of a president?
Click to expand...

Zarlak said:
Wtf does having the balls to say what you think have to do with anything? Kate Hopkins says what she thinks. Abu Hamza says what he thinks. What exactly is good about that? You move past that and look at the content of what he says, which is farcical and outrageous.
Click to expand...


TBF, he is probably the only member of the GOP who isnt bought and sold by Koch, toeing the party line or parroting inane talking points.
These are people who voted for Bush twice.... and Trump arguably is better than Bush.
 
Zarlak said:
Wtf does having the balls to say what you think have to do with anything? Kate Hopkins says what she thinks. Abu Hamza says what he thinks. What exactly is good about that? You move past that and look at the content of what he says, which is farcical and outrageous.
Click to expand...
Hitler said what he thought. You missed that one.
 
Nobby style said:
Bollocks!!!

I think he would recognise this party perfectly. And be proud of it. Hold it like a dear grandchild. He´d endorse the outright racism and dog whistling. He´d be very down with suppressing the minority and young people´s vote. He´d love the still fresh free market anti government blah blah blah still mouth breathed as fervent ideology. He´d adore the way Republicans have done all they can to throw a monkey wrench in negotiations with Iran, just like he treasonously did in the run up to the 1980 election. He would love their anti environmentalism with passion. He´d love the "actor" tv personality of Trump. In the video of infinite boredom he and Trump appear as very ugly bobsy twins. I´m sure the Tea Party would be his freedom fighters.

I don´t think anyone who was politically conscious in the 80s USA (and California before during his governorship) would think Reagan doesn´t recognise Republican nowadays. This is Reagan´s baby. A very modern, nasty adult he raised with loving nasty care.
Click to expand...

Bravo!
 
"Having the balls to say what he thinks" . . . ya gotta love Donald Trump

On the housing crash:

"I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy," Trump said in the 2006 audiobook for his now-defunct Trump University that was published by CNN. "If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you could make a lot of money."

Spoken like a true, Republican douchebag. Few capitalising on the misery of many. Ya gotta love this thinking for a president of the US.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I'm not sure I see enough of a reason not to apply the same to Hopkins.
Click to expand...

I would have thought the reason was evident to be fair, it serves to show that 'says what's on his mind' is not an inherently positive trait and is completely irrelevant when determining how good of a president someone would be. I could have included Hitler in there and the point would still have stood. Not to mention that Hopkins is probably the best comparison to Trump that you could make, he even endorses her and thinks she's a nice woman - but at least he's not afraid to say what he thinks!
 
Feck me! I despair. Trump says what he thinks yet knows absolutely nothing about what he is talking about. Then he will change his mind or contradict himself a day or so later. And people are openly saying this is a good quality and they will vote for him because of that? So much for making an informed and educated decision. This bloke will have access to nuclear codes and be able to order people to go to war for fecks sake. It's not a joke! It's not just a local council election where you are voting for someone who wants to change building regulations or local car parking issues, this bloke can effect the entire WORLD!

Zarlak said:
Wtf does having the balls to say what you think have to do with anything? Kate Hopkins says what she thinks. Abu Hamza says what he thinks. What exactly is good about that? You move past that and look at the content of what he says, which is farcical and outrageous.
Click to expand...

Apparently he makes sense to a lot of people, as unfeckingbelievable as that may sound.
 
Zarlak said:
I would have thought the reason was evident to be fair, it serves to show that 'says what's on his mind' is not an inherently positive trait and is completely irrelevant when determining how good of a president someone would be. I could have included Hitler in there and the point would still have stood.
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, this was just a joke about how obvious it was that you'd deliberately left Hitler out and now I don't know where we're going...
 
Zarlak said:
Wtf does having the balls to say what you think have to do with anything? Kate Hopkins says what she thinks. Abu Hamza says what he thinks. What exactly is good about that? You move past that and look at the content of what he says, which is farcical and outrageous.
Click to expand...

It's the perfect climate for strong words and "brass balls" to appeal to voters. People here are crying out for strong leadership. Someone that embodies American resolve, without apology. Do Trump's strong words equal strong leadership? We just might find out...

Nobby style said:
Spoken like a true, Republican douchebag. Few capitalising on the misery of many. Ya gotta love this thinking for a president of the US.
Click to expand...

I like it. I hope he applies the same shrewd opportunism to running the country. We are short of money.
 
Nobby style said:
Bollocks!!!

I think he would recognise this party perfectly. And be proud of it. Hold it like a dear grandchild. He´d endorse the outright racism and dog whistling. He´d be very down with suppressing the minority and young people´s vote. He´d love the still fresh free market anti government blah blah blah still mouth breathed as fervent ideology. He´d adore the way Republicans have done all they can to throw a monkey wrench in negotiations with Iran, just like he treasonously did in the run up to the 1980 election. He would love their anti environmentalism with passion. He´d love the "actor" tv personality of Trump. In the video of infinite boredom he and Trump appear as very ugly bobsy twins. I´m sure the Tea Party would be his freedom fighters.

I don´t think anyone who was politically conscious in the 80s USA (and California before during his governorship) would think Reagan doesn´t recognise Republican nowadays. This is Reagan´s baby. A very modern, nasty adult he raised with loving nasty care.
Click to expand...

The facts fly in the face of your conclusion. At least the Washington Post thinks so: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...094512-ed70-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_story.html

A good example of the devolution of the Republican Party from its mid 1970s (Nixon signed numerous environmental protection laws, went to China, imposed wage and price controls (stupid policy, but hardly right-wing), pursued desegregation and signed Title IX, although Watergate overshadowed all that to cement his legacy as a criminal) center-right orientation to its now leper colony of morons is the fate of Richard Lugar, long-time US Senator from Indiana. Lugar was a Republican that enjoyed respect from both sides of the aisle and it can absolutely, positively be said of Lugar that he sought bipartisan compromise on a wide range of issues. I have never heard of any Dem claim that Lugar did not serve his country in the US with distinction and honor, even if they disagreed on a number of issues. A few years ago Lugar was defeated in the US Senate primary election to Richard Mourdock, a creepy tea-party Republican who eventually lost the general election to a Dem.

What were Mourdock's complaints with Lugar? Funny you ask. He mocked Lugar's long record of bipartisanship, specifically citing the auto bailouts and several arms control agreements. And more, but that's enough for this post. The tea party Reps went wild, clubbing Lugar to political extinction by a vote of 60-40%. I can cite numerous examples of center-right Republicans being taken out or replaced by far-right Republicans over the last two decades. The specific causes are many but they essentially boil down to the same complaint: that Republicans who try to work with Democrats are "traitors" who "support the establishment" and thus must be purged from the party.

The point of all of this is to say that the Republican Party of 2016 looks nothing like the Republican Party of 1980. Sure, there was Jesse Helms and a few other racists and their importance should not be overlooked but at that time the US Senate was led by the likes of Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum, Alan Simpson, William Cohen, Arlen Spectre, Al D'Amato, Warren Rudman, Chuck Grassley and others of their ilk. If you've never heard of these people you need to check them out on google. None were "saints" and all had serious faults (like you and I) but most Republicans in Congress at that time were serious about addressing the issues of the day. The same cannot be said of Trump and today's congressional Republicans.
 
This new thing about Trump debating Bernie looks like it might actually happen. Would be weird for Hillary to get boxed out of the narrative and would definitely benefit both Trump and Bernie.
 
Raoul said:
This new thing about Trump debating Bernie looks like it might actually happen. Would be weird for Hillary to get boxed out of the narrative and would definitely benefit both Trump and Bernie.
Click to expand...
Serious blunder from Hillary if true. Is she afraid of attacks on the email topic?
 
The Firestarter said:
Serious blunder from Hillary if true. Is she afraid of attacks on the email topic?
Click to expand...

She probably thought she could suffocate Bernie into irrelevance by ignoring him and going after Trump, which would obviously backfire in a big way if Trump and Bernie have a cordial debate about the issues. It would elevate Bernie into a situation where voters and super delegates could evaluate how he may do against Trump in the Gen.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Drumpf aides have already said it won't happen.

Don't hold the Donald to anything, you'll be left blue balled.
Click to expand...

I hope the Trump leaning Bernie fans see this and realise if they are looking for honesty Donald fecking Trump isn't the way to go.
 
Raoul said:
This new thing about Trump debating Bernie looks like it might actually happen. Would be weird for Hillary to get boxed out of the narrative and would definitely benefit both Trump and Bernie.
Click to expand...
I can see Trump being relatively cordial with Sanders and trying to emphasise that they are both not the "establishment" candidates
Basically trying his best to appeal to Sanders backers in the likely event that Clinton is the nominee... And of course laying into Clinton throughout
 
sun_tzu said:
I can see Trump being relatively cordial with Sanders and trying to emphasise that they are both not the "establishment" candidates
Basically trying his best to appeal to Sanders backers in the likely event that Clinton is the nominee... And of course laying into Clinton throughout
Click to expand...
I'm sure he'd try that. It would only take a minor insult from Sanders to send him off script though, one would think.
 
sun_tzu said:
I can see Trump being relatively cordial with Sanders and trying to emphasise that they are both not the "establishment" candidates
Basically trying his best to appeal to Sanders backers in the likely event that Clinton is the nominee... And of course laying into Clinton throughout
Click to expand...

Yeah so can I. Bernie doesn't engage in the sort of attacks that elicit the types of responses Trump used against the likes of Rubio and Cruz. Basically, everyone in a Trump - Sanders debate would win except Hillary.
 
Raoul said:
She probably thought she could suffocate Bernie into irrelevance by ignoring him and going after Trump, which would obviously backfire in a big way if Trump and Bernie have a cordial debate about the issues. It would elevate Bernie into a situation where voters and super delegates could evaluate how he may do against Trump in the Gen.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If she is so afraid of debates, then I image she will get verbally bullied out of the next debate she inevitably has with Trump, who seems very versed at just that. And the general perception will be that she is simply unfit to be a president. Actually, they both are. What sad times for American democracy.
 
@MrMarcello

Is this what you are subject to?

Belen Lara
White House Accidentally Slips Out Obama’s Plans to Cancel November Elections

http://survivemagazine5249.blogspot.com

It looks like ISIS’ next move could make Obama president for life.

Presidential candidate Ben Carson has proof that anarchy might be used to cancel the
2016 election.

According to Ex CIA director Michael Morell “there are thousands of ISIS sympathizers
in the United States” already creating a “global caliphate”.

Obama may be right that ISIS can’t topple the U.S. government… but he might use the
chaos, panic and fear from the terrorist threats to extend his presidency and postpone
the 2016 elections.

http://survivemagazine5249.blogspot.com

This new documentary uncovers how ISIS is gathering new forces for the final battle
with the Western World. The most surprising part is… it actually ties in with the 2016
Click to expand...
 
The Firestarter said:
Indeed. If she is so afraid of debates, then I image she will get verbally bullied out of the next debate she inevitably has with Trump, who seems very versed at just that. And the general perception will be that she is simply unfit to be a president. Actually, they both are. What sad times for American democracy.
Click to expand...


Was Obama afraid of debating Clinton when he refused to debate her in Maine, Washington and Wisconsin in the tail end of 08 campaign?

It's the oldest political play in the book. Loser grasping for straws to get media exposure, winner choking them off. Much ado about nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.