2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who is Hillary likely to pick as her running mate? Presumably someone slightly to the left to appease the Bernie voters?
 
George Owen said:
Click to expand...


I don't find the video particularly interesting. I'm sure you can make one of these for most politicians. Forming or reinforcing ones opinion off a video like this is sort of reminiscent of transfer muppets salivating about a player they've never seen before after viewing their YouTube highlights.
 
She's cretinous.

I can't stand that 9/11 stuff (terrorism, blah, blah blah). Empty nonsense.
 
Red Dreams said:
goes to the root of what this election is about. why voters are rejecting establishment candidates. Who are candidates answerable to? Its valid to probe this issue.
Click to expand...

I don't it has anything to do with the election. Its just a way for one side to score points against the other.
 
Red Dreams said:
It speaks to integrity Raoul.
Click to expand...
Yet you consider voting for Trump, on the basis that you think he must be lying about thinking Mexicans are rapists and that muslims should be banned, in order to win votes.
 
Red Dreams said:
It speaks to integrity Raoul.
Click to expand...

I don't think it does - most politicians change their views over time. Obama and Biden were famously not for gay marriage in 2008 and quickly changed their views a couple of years later after making the political calculation that social norms had changed and the country was on board with a change in policy. This is a normal part of politics. I'd rather deal with politicians who evolve than strict ideologues like Cruz or Sanders.
 
She doesn't so much evolve as change her positions based upon public opinion. No consistency, but consistently wrong.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
She doesn't so much evolve as change her positions based upon public opinion. No consistency, but consistently wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a reality of politics. Politicians have a certain amount of political capitol to work with and can't afford to blow it all on one issue. However when public opinion changes, they can then use such sentiment to embrace a new position without losing any capitol. That's precisely what happened to Obama and Gay Marriage, the Dems and Weed Smoking, etc. Times change, social attitudes change, and as such, so do the views of Politicians.
 
Raoul said:
That's a reality of politics. Politicians have a certain amount of political capitol to work with and can't afford to blow it all on one issue. However when public opinion changes, they can then use such sentiment to embrace a new position without losing any capitol. That's precisely what happened to Obama and Gay Marriage, the Dems and Weed Smoking, etc. Times change, social attitudes change, and as such, so do the views of Politicians.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing though, how can you ever trust someone who changes their views so frequently based upon what they think the public wants to hear. She stands for whatever will get her elected.
 
Ubik said:
Yet you consider voting for Trump, on the basis that you think he must be lying about thinking Mexicans are rapists and that muslims should be banned, in order to win votes.
Click to expand...

as I have said before, its rhetoric. He doe not have super pacs. some of his charges against congress and other politicians are correct. they represent special interest. not ordinary voters.

the debate needs to address this. the root of our economic disparity between those who have and those who do not.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Here's the thing though, how can you ever trust someone who changes their views so frequently based upon what they think the public wants to hear. She stands for whatever will get her elected.
Click to expand...

You're not supposed to trust them 100%, you're supposed to have a general agreement with their political platform - in terms of economics, foreign policy, social policy etc.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think it does - most politicians change their views over time. Obama and Biden were famously not for gay marriage in 2008 and quickly changed their views a couple of years later after making the political calculation that social norms had changed and the country was on board with a change in policy. This is a normal part of politics. I'd rather deal with politicians who evolve than strict ideologues like Cruz or Sanders.
Click to expand...

I'm Only addressing the charge of money in politics. I'm glad this is what this election has come down to. Who are politicians answerable to?
 
Red Dreams said:
I'm Only addressing the charge of money in politics. I'm glad this is what this election has come down to. Who are politicians answerable to?
Click to expand...

The public of course, but until such time as there is a change in campaign finance laws, I don't expect Hillary or any other candidate to only accept donations from PayPal accounts when all the others are participating through wealthier donors.
 
Raoul said:
You're not supposed to trust them 100%, you're supposed to have a general agreement with their political platform - in terms of economics, foreign policy, social policy etc.
Click to expand...
I'd still have her over any Republican, but she's the best of a bad bunch.

Her foreign policy will be interesting, because she essentially went with Bush in Iraq. Very friendly with Israel. Quite right wing in all honesty.
 
Raoul said:
The public of course, but until such time as there is a change in campaign finance laws, I don't expect Hillary or any other candidate to only accept donations from PayPal accounts when all the others are participating through wealthier donors.
Click to expand...

sorry. That is not enough. If Sanders can do it, Hillary should do the same. Or she should come up with her own money. Even if she does do that...now, she should let the voters know what those transcripts are about.
 
Raoul said:
That's a reality of politics. Politicians have a certain amount of political capitol to work with and can't afford to blow it all on one issue. However when public opinion changes, they can then use such sentiment to embrace a new position without losing any capitol. That's precisely what happened to Obama and Gay Marriage, the Dems and Weed Smoking, etc. Times change, social attitudes change, and as such, so do the views of Politicians.
Click to expand...
This annoyed me more than it should.

Agree with you, for the most part, mind.
 
Red Dreams said:
as I have said before, its rhetoric. He doe not have super pacs. some of his charges against congress and other politicians are correct. they represent special interest. not ordinary voters.

the debate needs to address this. the root of our economic disparity between those who have and those who do not.
Click to expand...
Do you remember how Super-Pacs came about?
 
Red Dreams said:
as I have said before, its rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Nah, that's not just rhetoric but hate mongering what he's been doing which world over is done by politicians to divides societies for political benefits.

And it's not something he'll be able to rid himself off soon just as easy you think considering the support base unless he just goes CBF and all looney which will have other consequences as it would mean him not giving a feck anymore.

For all the super pac and whatever stuff his first bump came Immigration rhetoric and other controversial statements while his 2nd bump came from the all anti muslim rhetoric. Rest has just been more abuse insults etc..
 
Raoul said:
That's a reality of politics. Politicians have a certain amount of political capitol to work with and can't afford to blow it all on one issue. However when public opinion changes, they can then use such sentiment to embrace a new position without losing any capitol. That's precisely what happened to Obama and Gay Marriage, the Dems and Weed Smoking, etc. Times change, social attitudes change, and as such, so do the views of Politicians.
Click to expand...

From the Syria thread:
"Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her."
 
barros said:
From the Syria thread:
"Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her."
Click to expand...

:eek:

This for real??
 
Ubik said:
Do you remember how Super-Pacs came about?
Click to expand...

Citizens United? and? the point being made is that the political system has evolved to make all this 'bribes' legal and the voters are waking up to the fact their voices are not being heard and they in fact are being screwed. This election is voters wanting Their voices being heard and their lot being improved.
 
FromTheBench said:
Nah, that's not just rhetoric but hate mongering what he's been doing which world over is done by politicians to divides societies for political benefits.

And it's not something he'll be able to rid himself off soon just as easy you think considering the support base unless he just goes CBF and all looney which will have other consequences as it would mean him not giving a feck anymore.

For all the super pac and whatever stuff his first bump came Immigration rhetoric and other controversial statements while his 2nd bump came from the all anti muslim rhetoric. Rest has just been more abuse insults etc..
Click to expand...

Firstly, I'm not defending all he is saying. I am saying he is not taking outside money.
 
Red Dreams said:
Citizens United? and? the point being made is that the political system has evolved to make all this 'bribes' legal and the voters are waking up to the fact their voices are not being heard and they in fact are being screwed. This election is voters wanting Their voices being heard and their lot being improved.
Click to expand...
And what was Citizens United being fought over? A GOP group wanting to air a film that attacked Hillary. Quite literally, Super-Pacs came into existence to attack Hillary Clinton. If you think she really likes them, I'd say you're grossly mistaken. She's going to use them to level the playing field to beat the scumbag GOP, then she'll kill them off.
 
Looks an outlier to me, another one out today (3,500 sample) has Trump still in the lead by 15.
 
Ubik said:
And what was Citizens United being fought over? A GOP group wanting to air a film that attacked Hillary. Quite literally, Super-Pacs came into existence to attack Hillary Clinton. If you think she really likes them, I'd say you're grossly mistaken. She's going to use them to level the playing field to beat the scumbag GOP, then she'll kill them off.
Click to expand...

She will use them of course. Sure. She is the lesser of the two evils. But she is offering no real benefits to ordinary people. If she wants to be for ordinary people as she claims, she needs to prove she is only answerable to the voters and not to special interests.
 
South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Clemson
Trump 28, Cruz 19, Rubio 15, Bush 10, Kasich 9, Carson 6 Trump +9

South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Opinion Savvy
Trump 27, Cruz 19, Rubio 24, Bush 11, Kasich 7, Carson 8 Trump +3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.