2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Revan said:
It is more than worthy of it, but the problem is that around half (if not more) of Americans might think that global warming isn't real, while a lot of people in the other half, underestimate it. It is a shame that Gore didn't became president in 2000. Still think that the world in general (and in particular, the global warming problem) would have gone into a completely different direction if Gore became president instead of Bush.

Now, I think that not much will change. Whoever wins from democrats (be it Bernie or more than likely, Clinton) would be highly hated from GOP, and so they would be united against the president like they were against Obama. Considering that generally the senate and house are controlled from the other party (not the one which has the president), they would block Hillary's policies like they did with Obama's. And of course, that is the best case scenario. If someone from the other lunatics wins (especially the king of lunatics, Cruz), then they might decide to fight global warming by generating more carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...


Agreed with the bolded. Can't stand looking at Jeb's face (or hearing people call him a moderate) for that reason.

The Tea Party changed the conversation within the party and made sure only lunatics could be voted into power. We need an equal and opposite effect if there is ever to be action on climate change. This "revolution" cannot be restricted to one man.
A HUGE start would be doing something about campaign finance, which IMO is the domino issue.


About the people: the shift in other things has been rapid (gay marriage, etc). They (seem to) go where the leaders go.
 
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has tapped a press aide from the Department of Education as director of black media, according to BuzzFeed News.

The Democratic front-runner’s campaign has hired Denise Horn, who has also worked on President Obama’s 2012 campaign, ahead of the South Carolina primary. She will assume her role on the campaign on Monday, according to sources familiar with her hire.

While working at the Education Department, Horn managed black media and worked with historically black colleges and universities. On the campaign, she will meet with spiritual leaders and grassroots organizers ahead of Super Tuesday.
Click to expand...

'Director of Black Media' - FFS.

Leaving that aside, it's obvious, Hillary knows she's going to need the court the minority vote not just for the primary, but the general. She has to ensure they turnout for her and don't get turned off the process.

@unchanged_lineup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
 
Man, Bernie has the wrong nationality. The left parties of countries like Germany or Britain are desperate for someone like him. He also wouldn't have to fight against claims of him being an unelectable left extremist.
 
Ubik said:
I didn't say he was in the Tea Party :lol: Obviously their positions are different on the issues (though plenty of your classic Tea Party types aren't the racist loonies, they're just obsessed with small government).
Click to expand...

My point is, that these kind of analogies imply, that Sanders is equally far to the left as the tea party is to the right. This point is wrong; plane and simple.
The gap between current policies and Sander´s ideas isn´t as big as it is made out to be, while implementing tea party policies would change the country to its core.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
You're gonna have to explain that to me cos superdelegates is a whole new dimension to me. How can they choose her when she lost?
Click to expand...
Superdelegates vote whoever they want. And they have around 20% of the votes in Democratic Party. Generally they are current and former presidents, members of the house of representatives, senators, governors and leaders of the party. Of course, mostly they vote around the same as what 'people' voted in their states, but they aren't legally obliged to do so. To make this even more of a clusterfeck, even the pledged delegates don't necessary vote how the people voted in that state. Of course, that is just theory, in practice, they follow people wishes (the pledged delegates; superdelegates not necessary).
 
Revan said:
Superdelegates vote whoever they want. And they have around 20% of the votes in Democratic Party. Generally they are current and former presidents, members of the house of representatives, senators, governors and leaders of the party. Of course, mostly they vote around the same as what 'people' voted in their states, but they aren't legally obliged to do so. To make this even more of a clusterfeck, even the pledged delegates don't necessary vote how the people voted in that state. Of course, that is just theory, in practice, they follow people wishes (the pledged delegates; superdelegates not necessary).
Click to expand...

Wow. Yay democracy!
 
You could say Sanders won by 22 points. But what is also true is NH, the state that gave her a lifline in 2008 rejected her in such a brutal manner.

Only the old and rich voted for her more than for Sanders.

She has no message. No authenticity.
All voters can see is, she wants to be President.

She will not be the nominee imo. The only reason she will be difficult to overcome is because the party machinery is with her. But the voters can see this and will be even more eager to level the playing field, because they are in the same position where the super rich game the system in their own favour.

What happened last night was equivalent to the Storming of the Bastile. This Political Revolution started with the Storming of Wall Street.
 
berbatrick said:
@Ubik

While the news was dominated by the primary yesterday, there was an article below the headlines saying that the SC has blocked Obama's executive orders on climate change.
Given that Dems do not have the house majority and Senate supermajority that they would need to overcome this, it means, quite literally, the apocalypse is a few years closer. My generations is fecked. It is not fecked because we didn't know. It is fecked because both parties, but one in particular, is so completely and transparently the party of corporate interests including oil interests that they are willing to sell out future generations, publicly and proudly. Campaign finance and in particular Citizens United have, apart from a million smaller impacts, fecked my generation.
If that is not worthy of a "popular revolution" and an insurgent movement that changes the conversation as dramaticaly as the Tea Party did, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
The thing that ruling emphasised to me was that absolute necessity of a Democrat occupying the White House next January. If it's a Republican, with majorities in both houses and more Supreme Court positions likely becoming available in the next term or two, we really are fecked. I know you think Bernie is actually the likelier to win a GE so this argument won't hold much sway, but I am yet to see any substantive evidence that would overturn the conventional wisdom of a two-party system where the candidate closer to the median voter is likelier to win. Either way, that's why I'm extremely nervous about Bernie despite having liked him for years.

DiseaseOfTheAge said:
So did the Nazis/Backstreet Boys.

Agree with your point, on the whole, but I also think 'It's not the same 'cause they're 'orrible and reactionary and we're lovely and thoughtful' is a perfectly valid argument here.
Click to expand...
But I suppose this is the thing about the Tea Party, my original point wasn't really related to their moral positions, it was that they hugely divided their party, dragged it away from the electable ground and led to the rag-tag bunch we see before us, who most agree would struggle in a GE due to their positions despite having a lot of enthusiastic support with large rallies and a lot of money. They have something about them which springs to mind immediately that puts moderate minded voters off them. I guess my point is, the "socialist" position (as I mentioned many pages back, 50% in a recent poll said they wouldn't vote for a socialist. Atheist only got 40%.) of higher spending and big government (unpopular) has the potential to be just as big a drag.
 
Red Dreams said:
You could say Sanders won by 22 points. But what is also true is NH, the state that gave her a lifline in 2008 rejected her in such a brutal manner.

Only the old and rich voted for her more than for Sanders.

She has no message. No authenticity.
All voters can see is, she wants to be President.

She will not be the nominee imo. The only reason she will be difficult to overcome is because the party machinery is with her. But the voters can see this and will be even more eager to level the playing field, because they are in the same position where the super rich game the system in their own favour.

What happened last night was equivalent to the Storming of the Bastile. This Political Revolution started with the Storming of Wall Street.
Click to expand...
I hope so, but it is really hard to see her not winning the nomination. I doubt that even Bernie himself thinks that he's gonna win.

We'll know more after Super-Tuesday, but I think that there is a good chance, that she will become a de-facto 'nominee' the following day.
 
Red Dreams said:
You could say Sanders won by 22 points. But what is also true is NH, the state that gave her a lifline in 2008 rejected her in such a brutal manner.

Only the old and rich voted for her more than for Sanders.

She has no message. No authenticity.
All voters can see is, she wants to be President.

She will not be the nominee imo. The only reason she will be difficult to overcome is because the party machinery is with her. But the voters can see this and will be even more eager to level the playing field, because they are in the same position where the super rich game the system in their own favour.

What happened last night was equivalent to the Storming of the Bastile. This Political Revolution started with the Storming of Wall Street.
Click to expand...
I'd wait until Nevada and South Carolina before calling this a political revolution. I'm not downplaying what Sanders has done to date...but, I'd wait until those two states were done and dusted.
 
Revan said:
I hope so, but it is really hard to see her not winning the nomination. I doubt that even Bernie himself thinks that he's gonna win.

We'll know more after Super-Thursday, but I think that there is a good chance, that she will become a de-facto 'nominee' the following day.
Click to expand...

we'll have to wait and see.

But note. Minorities want the same things whites want. They may not have been listening to Bernie. They will now. All Hillary is doing is giving lip service.
 
Red Dreams said:
You could say Sanders won by 22 points. But what is also true is NH, the state that gave her a lifline in 2008 rejected her in such a brutal manner.

Only the old and rich voted for her more than for Sanders.

She has no message. No authenticity.
All voters can see is, she wants to be President.

She will not be the nominee imo. The only reason she will be difficult to overcome is because the party machinery is with her. But the voters can see this and will be even more eager to level the playing field, because they are in the same position where the super rich game the system in their own favour.

What happened last night was equivalent to the Storming of the Bastile. This Political Revolution started with the Storming of Wall Street.
Click to expand...

Oh stop it. You can't take my job if you don't know how to do it! :)

But yeah, she is pretty hollow as a candidate.
 
Ubik said:
But I suppose this is the thing about the Tea Party, my original point wasn't really related to their moral positions, it was that they hugely divided their party, dragged it away from the electable ground and led to the rag-tag bunch we see before us, who most agree would struggle in a GE due to their positions despite having a lot of enthusiastic support with large rallies and a lot of money. They have something about them which springs to mind immediately that puts moderate minded voters off them. I guess my point is, the "socialist" position (as I mentioned many pages back, 50% in a recent poll said they wouldn't vote for a socialist. Atheist only got 40%.) of higher spending and big government (unpopular) has the potential to be just as big a drag.
Click to expand...



They regained the senate and have the biggest house majority in years (decades?). They control 31/50 states. They lost the presidency, where demographics were hurting them anyway. Huge win IMO.
 
berbatrick said:
They regained the senate and have the biggest house majority in years (decades?). They control 31/50 states. They lost the presidency, where demographics were hurting them anyway. Huge win IMO.
Click to expand...
Was referring to the Presidency (where dragging candidates into positions on immigration and social issues ends up poisoning the candidate). The TPers greatest success in congress is essentially to make intransigence the norm, and create a civil war within the party. And shutting down the government (good ol' Ted).
 
I don't accept that we should elect a candidate based on an assumption he or she could better cut a deal with a minority in congress (T party).

A president comes in with a mandate from the majority. It is the job of the President to carry out the mandate. Compromise. Sure. But not surrender. No law can become a law unless the President signs it. Most in congress want to govern, with the exception of the Tea Party. The Tea party should not be allowed to terrorise the nation.
 
Red Dreams said:
I don't accept that we should elect a candidate based on an assumption he or she could better cut a deal with a minority in congress (T party).

A president comes in with a mandate from the majority. It is the job of the President to carry out the mandate. Compromise. Sure. But not surrender. No law can become a law unless the President signs it. Most in congress want to govern, with the exception of the Tea Party. The Tea party should not be allowed to terrorise the nation.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I wouldn't argue that people who want to see federal public healthcare, higher marginal tax rates at the top, and such shouldn't vote for Sanders. They should. But they should also be aware that because those policies are far from the current center, the likelihood that they'll see the light of day in the next 4 years is low. Its similar to Obama's Guantanamo promise in a sense, it was too impractical to execute as initially planned.

Its just an expectations thing, or Sanders might get elected, and by 2020 we might not still have federal public healthcare and all these people will be disappointed all over again like they were about Obama, and then what?

All this is hypothetical of course, maybe Sanders will get elected, will pass his healthcare and tax plans and it'll all be great. I don't want to argue how viable it is or not, just defending a position of general skepticism which is how I usually feel about elections, and keeps me from get angry every 4 years about my dreams not coming true.
 
How likely is it for Sanders to do well in South Carolina?

Looking at recent polling, he's almost 30 percent behind Hilary. Is it conceivable that he'll be able to make up such a large gap in such a short time? Has this happened in the past with other elections?
 
MarceloFalcon said:
I agree with that. I wouldn't argue that people who want to see federal public healthcare, higher marginal tax rates at the top, and such shouldn't vote for Sanders. They should. But they should also be aware that because those policies are far from the current center, the likelihood that they'll see the light of day in the next 4 years is low. Its similar to Obama's Guantanamo promise in a sense, it was too impractical to execute as initially planned.

Its just an expectations thing, or Sanders might get elected, and by 2020 we might not still have federal public healthcare and all these people will be disappointed all over again like they were about Obama, and then what?

All this is hypothetical of course, maybe Sanders will get elected, will pass his healthcare and tax plans and it'll all be great. I don't want to argue how viable it is or not, just defending a position of general skepticism which is how I usually feel about elections, and keeps me from get angry every 4 years about my dreams not coming true.
Click to expand...

Cynicism :lol:

Sadly, I'm the same.
 
Giant Midget said:
How likely is it for Sanders to do well in South Carolina?

Looking at recent polling, he's almost 30 percent behind Hilary. Is it conceivable that he'll be able to make up such a large gap in such a short time? Has this happened in the past with other elections?
Click to expand...

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-south-carolina-presidential-democratic-primary

Fascinating stuff. September must have been when Biden declared he wasn't running because Clinton's numbers have been on the up since then. Late November seems to have been another turning point because Clinton's numbers have been falling since then. It would need another very significant change for Sanders to have a hope though.
 
Neutral said:
Cynicism :lol:

Sadly, I'm the same.
Click to expand...

Its not even that I'm cynical, or gravely mistrust government. I like the political process, believe it could be improved but also realize it could be worse. Same with government in general. Its really just skepticism, specially regarding wide-sweeping change. A lot of things that could be improved are small things that wouldn't make headlines. My votes (although all in Brazil) by the end have usually been reluctant, fully aware of my candidate's shortcomings, but confident that he/she is the better of the options presented (I've voted for socialists, because they were the more competent/less ideological of the socialists on display).
 
unchanged_lineup said:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-south-carolina-presidential-democratic-primary

Fascinating stuff. September must have been when Biden declared he wasn't running because Clinton's numbers have been on the up since then. Late November seems to have been another turning point because Clinton's numbers have been falling since then. It would need another very significant change for Sanders to have a hope though.
Click to expand...

Even the most optimistic polls have Sanders losing 60/40. I hope the wipeout in NH gives him a big boost. Clinton does seem on a downward trend and Sanders up, but there has to be a sharp upturn from this point for any hope.
 
Red Dreams said:
You could say Sanders won by 22 points. But what is also true is NH, the state that gave her a lifline in 2008 rejected her in such a brutal manner.

Only the old and rich voted for her more than for Sanders.

She has no message. No authenticity.
All voters can see is, she wants to be President.

She will not be the nominee imo. The only reason she will be difficult to overcome is because the party machinery is with her. But the voters can see this and will be even more eager to level the playing field, because they are in the same position where the super rich game the system in their own favour.

What happened last night was equivalent to the Storming of the Bastile. This Political Revolution started with the Storming of Wall Street.
Click to expand...
Thanks,that is exactly what I was about to write
 
Trump last night - "We are going to make America great again, but we're going to do it the old-fashioned way," he said as an excited crowd chanted, "USA, USA." "Were going to beat China, Japan, Mexico.”

Japan, really? What is this, the 80s?
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Trump last night - "We are going to make America great again, but we're going to do it the old-fashioned way," he said as an excited crowd chanted, "USA, USA." "Were going to beat China, Japan, Mexico.”

Japan, really? What is this, the 80s?
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't seen him saying that he'd contact Bill Gates to shut down the Internet.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Trump last night - "We are going to make America great again, but we're going to do it the old-fashioned way," he said as an excited crowd chanted, "USA, USA." "Were going to beat China, Japan, Mexico.”

Japan, really? What is this, the 80s?
Click to expand...

I'm just glad the fat head has left us British off the list :lol:
 
Giant Midget said:
Even the most optimistic polls have Sanders losing 60/40. I hope the wipeout in NH gives him a big boost. Clinton does seem on a downward trend and Sanders up, but there has to be a sharp upturn from this point for any hope.
Click to expand...

Very sharp. Extrapolating current trends would be nowhere, nowhere near enough.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
I hadn't, wow. Idiocracy is truly happening.
Click to expand...

The only explanation for a line like that not bombing in a huge collective show of bafflement is that the audience he said it too are even less tech savvy than he is :D

"Uhhhhh.... oh yeah sure, Bill Gates, that makes perfect sense." *hide cluelessness* "Go Trump! USA!"
 
Jeb! can just wait it out and when Christie & Fiorina drop out just suck up their votes and challenge Trump. He'll even pick up votes from Kasich and Robotio.
 
Grinner said:
Jeb! can just wait it out and when Christie & Fiorina drop out just suck up their votes and challenge Trump. He'll even pick up votes from Kasich and Robotio.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping he'll be there at the end simply by survival of the fittest - or the better funded. And that he can gobble up all the non-Trump votes currently spread out.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
I agree with that. I wouldn't argue that people who want to see federal public healthcare, higher marginal tax rates at the top, and such shouldn't vote for Sanders. They should. But they should also be aware that because those policies are far from the current center, the likelihood that they'll see the light of day in the next 4 years is low. Its similar to Obama's Guantanamo promise in a sense, it was too impractical to execute as initially planned.

Its just an expectations thing, or Sanders might get elected, and by 2020 we might not still have federal public healthcare and all these people will be disappointed all over again like they were about Obama, and then what?

All this is hypothetical of course, maybe Sanders will get elected, will pass his healthcare and tax plans and it'll all be great. I don't want to argue how viable it is or not, just defending a position of general skepticism which is how I usually feel about elections, and keeps me from get angry every 4 years about my dreams not coming true.
Click to expand...

we don't disagree. People vote for issues. How many will get done? Many factors affect the success or failure of policies a President wants to get done. My belief is people should vote and at the end respect the results. Thats what democracy is all about. What I have seen is the majority of Republicans Want to govern. It is important to vote believing we can change things. Otherwise we have surrendered before we have started.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
I'm hoping he'll be there at the end simply by survival of the fittest - or the better funded. And that he can gobble up all the non-Trump votes currently spread out.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure. His biggest hurdle now is fundraising. Plenty of money left in his Super PAC but the actual campaign is not bringing in much, and his only chance to compete now is to overspend his opponent in organizing and ads. Scott Walker dropped out with $6m still in his PAC I think.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-black-voters_us_56ba797fe4b08ffac12328f0

Here's Why Black People Should Think Twice Before Voting For Hillary Clinton


What a lot of black voters aren’t aware of, however, is how the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of his presidency helped mass incarceration become more efficient with the “three strikes” implementation, a provision that imposed life sentences on anyone convicted of a violent felony after two or more priors. Former President Clinton also signed into law the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which gutted welfare. He repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1996 -- a Depression-era banking law that kept different kinds of banking institutions separate -- which, arguably, led to the 2008 housing crisis and disproportionately affected black homeowners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.