2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
FromTheBench said:
Some of the stuff Enquirer has apparently run includes -





Seems they are backing Trump for prez as well.
Ceaf8UJVAAAmdUD.jpg



How haven't they been sued into their end yet ?
Click to expand...


They probably figure Obama won't sue them, and the Hillary story isn't really libelous. I do know they're careful to ensure they've got all their ducks in a row before printing defamatory stories about celebrities - they've been sued expensively in the past.

The Cruz story is not based on vague accusations about lifestyle, inherently difficult to prove or refute, and constituting a difficult foundation for a successful libel suit under American law. They're claiming infidelity with at least 5 unnamed women. To defend themselves against a suit, the Enquirer would have to produce those women in court to testify that they'd had sex with Ted Cruz. If they made the story up, that would be tricky.
 
langster said:
It's really annoying how he skirts every question though, we need a Paxman style interview where he just goes at him relentlessly throwing facts and asking again and again until he gets an answer.
Click to expand...

He won't allow it. ESPN 30 for 30 had a segment on the USFL and the producer setup an interview with Trump then bombarded him with legit questions. Trump blasted him and walked off. He only plays by his rules.
 
The Enquirer is often hit n' miss (for example, Cher's been dying for several decades) but, these days, they are more wary of getting sued than in previous years.

Something about Cruz's denial makes me think it's less than heartfelt - I feel it's a telling sign when people talk about being (supposedly) offended instead of concentrating on defending themselves; claiming offence is no defence, in reality, and is sometimes merely a distraction technique.
 
America really is a strange country with these sort of stories. For example Michael Jordan is getting some shit for saying he hates rap music at a party he was at 14 years ago as if it somehow makes him less black and he is therefore working for the man.
He denied being there but now someone has combed through pics of a random party from 14 years ago to prove he was there. For the purpose of that "story"
Is it difficult to become a magazine editor in the States? Has David icke ever applied for a post?
 
SteveJ said:
The Enquirer is often hit n' miss (for example, Cher's been dying for several decades) but, these days, they are more wary of getting sued than in previous years.

Something about Cruz's denial makes me think it's less than heartfelt - I feel it's a telling sign when people talk about being (supposedly) offended instead of concentrating on defending themselves; claiming offence is no defence, in reality, and is sometimes merely a distraction technique.
Click to expand...
Technically True award winners 35 years in a row.
 
Still working out where Ted derived from Edward. I can see Ed or Eddie. Ted/Teddy makes sense with Theodore. But Ted from Edward seems a misnomer.

Works great for Ted running on the GOP ticket. Can't imagine him running under Rafael and galvanizing this fringe almost exclusively white base.
 
An article I read somewhere suggested that's it's actually Rubio's people who are behind the rumours.
 
Neutral said:
If this isn't the best ad you will see this campaign, I don't what is....

Simply Brilliant



Look up Tulsi Gabbard and the sacrifices she has made - and in particular, the way Republican cnuts, who DIDNT fight for this country have tried to question her integrity.
Click to expand...


She is angling for a cabinet spot.
 
Raoul said:
She is angling for a cabinet spot.
Click to expand...

She should. Didn't she give up her DNC Vice chair post to endorse Sanders?

Regarding the LusTed rumors, it seems these were pushed by many groups a while ago. Reporters were being fed by even Rubio camp about these, but no one decided to run with the story because of the implications and fact checking required. Guess these guys thought the reward was worth the risk (Or they are owned by Trump)
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
First, it is not a contradiction. Minorities are not a monolithic voting block. They come from different backgrounds, income levels and religious beliefs, all of which have a bearing on their support, or non-support towards a candidate. Bernie Sanders is a honourable man, but his single-issue campaign does not resonate with voters that are more affluent, more conservative or older (45 and above), those who reliably turn out on November every four years and are now the bedrock of Clinton's support. He's campaigned for the best part of a year, and as of right now has failed to capture that support, and got beaten soundly in swing states with large EV count critical to the Dems's chance come November (FL, NC, VA, OH). And yet, at the same time, he's not has a single cent spent against him from the GOP, as opposed to Clinton who was under that scrutiny for 25 years and was literally the reason that instigated Citizen United. I certainly can't say that he won't capture their support should he becomes the nominee, but their support cannot be taken for granted, just as the progressive wing's votes. Lower than expected turn out amongst these demographics can make it very complicated against the GOP.

Secondly, if you think the GOP merely 'smear', you are sadly mistaken. Dukakis by all account was an upstanding citizen, he got turned into a criminal sympathiser. John Kerry was a war hero, he was portrayed as a coward. That smear machine from the GOP is a real thing and it does not lack for practice, and there are vast swaths of Middle America who is dead set against a tax raising, big government, socialist Jew who praised the Castros and honeymooned in the USSR. By every metrics, the US is a centre-right country with a latent strain of nativism running in their psyche and national discourse. Look to George McGovern and see what kind of support a true left candidate can expect. On the other hand, the Clintons, and in particular, Hillary, haven gotten the kitchen sink thrown at them time and again, and they got the connections, financial backing and name recognition to combat it. Hillary Clinton is not personally under investigation by the FBI and that distinction is not lost on the non-GOP electorate. Favourability is a fleeting thing. She had a 60% positive rating back in 2013. Now it's what, 38%? Relying on a metric that is literally changing by the day and subjected to the whim of an electorate susceptible to fearmongering to choose your nominee is hardly a great strategy. 9 in 10 Dems and the majority of Democratic elected officials think that she's the better candidate, and they had no problem ditching her in the recent past. Harry Reid urged Obama to run, gave patronage to Elizabeth Warren and he's been behind her from the beginning of this cycle. If you think they support her purely out of loyalty to the Clintons then really, you are doing all of us a disservice.

I think none of us so-called Clinton supporters in this thread, be it me, Ubik or Raoul are burying our heads in the sands. I can't speak for either of them, but for my part I've made it clear numerous time in this thread that while I respect her achievements, I'm not personally invested. Her hawkish foreign policy and coziness towards the fecking butcher Kissinger, who had the blood of my countrymen on his hands turn me off greatly. The one I want to be running is Liz Warren, but it's not the case. My only interest in this race is to see a Democrat in the White House who has a shot of being elected again in 2020, a redistricting year, and if it's Hillary Clinton, so be it, because the world cannot afford another Republican ideologue in the most powerful post on Earth.
Click to expand...


Winning older and conservative voters in the general won't happen for either Dem nominee, it didn't happen for Obama either. As I said, there is no point underestimating Clinton's support among Dems of all kinds (except maybe college students). While he was getting beaten by Clinton, thos very states produced more favourable H2H polls for him. In every single one of those polls, that advantage was driven by independents who did/could not vote in the primary. And I've also said that he will lost Florida in the general for sure (rich, old, conservative). On the other hand, Utah would in play if he is the nominee.
I agree that lower turnout among minorities could be a problem, but the opponent here is (seems to be) Trump. That should be enough motivation for anyone.


Again, I said that how badly the GOP machine can bring down Sanders is an open question. But I'm not sure the answer is so definite. As I said, their 24/7 labeling of Obama may have reduced the strength of the word socialist. Certainly him being called a socialist (and calling himself one) hasn't done any damage yet. Embracing that smear is not something their opponents have done yet.


They have done a great job of smearing her, you are right. But she has not helped herself with that. There is a 12 minute youtube video with her just contradicting herself on every subject possible. In a cycle where people are anti-establishment that is not a good look. Favourability is a fleeting thing - but his has not changed much. In his home state he is insanely well-liked, in national polls he remains positive unlike everyone else in this fight. And the reason I cling to favourability is because 538 have said that it is a good predictor unlike H2Hs. It just so happens that right now both are saying the same thing.

She has been the nominee in waiting since 2012. Watch the news (better still, Jon Stewart) from 4 years ago and she was already the presumptive nominee. Nobody expected him to even run, there was precisely one piece on thehill which said he is touring Iowa, NH, etc. She already had the full Dem establishment lining up before she declared. (see the senators' letter)


I'm not sure anymore about the US public. I just think there are too many contradictions for a simple label. This is not centre-right. At the same time, people say get your govt hands off my medicare...


I have been convinced by the Clinton people in this thread that President Sanders couldn't achieve any of his domestic agenda. And while she has matched his rhetoric (though I am skeptical how much she will follow) when it comes to economics, they remain miles apart on foreign policy. That is the one area a president does have a much freer rein. And she is a diluted Bush in this respect.


For me the biggest issue is climate change. As SoS she promoted Keystone and promoted fracking all over the world. Her organisation has ties with the Saudis. To win the nomination she opposes Keystone and wants some regulations on fracking. I'm scared where the "compromises" she is so proud of will take us when it comes to fighting global warming.
 
@berbatrick favourability is a good indicator if and when the person in question is fully vetted by the media and public. Despite the oft-repeated and entirely valid fear about Sanders's socialism, it's his tax-raising plan that will kill him in the general should he get there.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

Now you tell me with a straight face the average Joe will understand the nuances of Bernie's plan, instead of being scared silly by having to pay 6k more in taxes on an income of 60k, when Cruz and Trump promise them tax breaks. It's a damn hard sell. Look up Walter Mondale and see what happened when you run on a tax raising platform. Look up George McGovern to see how well you can do with a base consists mainly of young, white liberals, most of them college students.

As for Clinton's domestic agenda, what is important to note is that she has much more political capital than Bernie ever will. Even with a Dem Senate, you cannot just advance your agenda willy nilly. There are red-state Democrats who will be prepared to bolt if they fear about their re-election prospect. If there's one thing the Clintons are good at, it's choosing their battle. Bill Clinton said it himself that he were still doing business 'on the side' with Newt Gingrich even when the impeachment trial was going on. On various issues, a degree of co-operation is required from blue state or moderate GOPers. Take SCOTUS nomination for example, Dems can't nuke a nominee through, so they will still need that 60 votes. If Sanders can't even get the Dems behind him, what chance will he have with the Republicans? He will effectively be a lame duck president from day 1, and in 2020 the Dems will lose before the campaign even start, ensuring another decade of GOP control at states level. That means voter suppression, that means social rights oppression, that means big businesses with a free reign to do deals with local officials.

Regarding global warming, sadly, I think we are fecked regardless. If the Chinese can't be persuaded to cut back on their emission, any talk of going green is just a pipe dream. I'd rather not hasten our end by having a GOP ideologue in the White House.
 
Loved Bernie's interview on the young turks the other day. Actually feels weird to see a politician speaking with so much logic.
 
I... don't get the tweet @Raoul posted. Is that purely supposed to be a joke, or is there some kind of demographic point Nate is making?
 
naturalized said:
I... don't get the tweet @Raoul posted. Is that purely supposed to be a joke, or is there some kind of demographic point Nate is making?
Click to expand...

Part joke, part reflecting how Trump is hated by so many women due to his remarks. That said, any candidate who has half the population voting against him won't win... Common sense.
 
naturalized said:
I... don't get the tweet @Raoul posted. Is that purely supposed to be a joke, or is there some kind of demographic point Nate is making?
Click to expand...

A bit of both. Trump is currently polling so poorly among women that he will probably lose a Gen by at least 200 electoral votes. Romney and his binders full of women, was polling significantly better in 2012 and still managed to get trounced by 134. Trump would be dealing with an entire country that is galvanized against him (spare the loons who currently support him), which will result in not only Hillary or Bernie winning the Presidency, but also the Dems likely reclaiming the Senate and potentially the House as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.