feck sake, can we not give Bazza another term?
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Then I see nonsense like this being parroted around by family members in Texas. Why do they believe in this nonsense?
--America's slowly but surely shifting towards turning into islamic state. Our president and our government are pro-islamic and don't want America to believe in our one and only Lord Jesus Christ. Texas will never keep step with U.S. Texas stays Christian even when odds are against us.-- https://www.facebook.com/timetosecede/?fref=nf&pnref=story
--America's slowly but surely shifting towards turning into islamic state. Our president and our government are pro-islamic and don't want America to believe in our one and only Lord Jesus Christ. Texas will never keep step with U.S. Texas stays Christian even when odds are against us.-- https://www.facebook.com/timetosecede/?fref=nf&pnref=story
Was it yourself I exchanged many a 'quote' with in a religion thread (shortly after I was promoted but I doubt that helps you), where you stated that it was your religious upbringing that had made you so anti-Christianity?
Good posts about Sanders, btw. Truth is polls mean nothing until proper scrutiny is applied and he has not had that and I think it's entirely fair to assume he'd suffer from it more that Hilary - due to how alien some of his views are to the mainstream electorate.
Death, taxes, and your family/friends posting weird shit on facebook
All of a sudden, this election seems a lot closer than I was ever expecting it to be. It'll be both incredible and depressing if Trump wins this (the Dems should hang their heads in shame).
Stating the obvious, but the Democratic selection process has really tarnished Clinton. I think being attacked on two fronts when Trump already has the GOP sown up is a huge disadvantage. And, given Bernie's ideological stance, it's no surprise that his supporters seem unlikely to back Clinton. It's a shame because even if you don't particularly like Clinton, she is a better choice than Trump every single time. The Dems really need to get their olive branches out.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36372929
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36372929
Clinton has not agreed to a debate with Bernie in California. She must be very afraid to be attacked by him in front of television audiences. She's a laughably weak candidate.
That sounds so bad in so many ways, if true. It will just turn into a Hillary bashing debate. Like I've said, I've never liked her, but this is not going to help the Dems win.And now he's going to debate Drumpf.
She's just giving the people what they want
I kinda want to see it, for the lulz alone.
Not worried one bit about the general. I'm hoping her numbers drop more so I can have a good odd to lay money on.
I guess I was wrong 
I'll be voting for a man I described as a rodeo clown / sideshow / Bruce Jenner / non-Republican.
I'll be voting for a man I described as a rodeo clown / sideshow / Bruce Jenner / non-Republican.
Beeb's headline.
I despair. The article obviously goes on to explain how Obama slates him but that headline is Trump's wet dream.
I am a Republican, at least for now. I'm no one of any particular importance but I worked for Reagan (knew him personally, but not well) and several other Republicans you may be familiar with and was fortunate to have a hand in welfare reform in the mid 1990s and a few other things.
Trump represents something far more insidious than a mere clown. He repudiates the founding principles of this nation and the principles of the political party he now is the presumptive potus nominee of.
When Trump claimed “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.” he made Mexican-Americans scapegoats for America's woes. This is the language of David Duke, George Wallace, Benjamin Tillman and John Calhoun. Most Republicans I know don't think like this...or at least didn't until Trump. Most Republicans until recently believed illegal immigration was a problem that needed to be addressed with stronger border security and some kind of guest worker program, but it was never accepted as common wisdom that "Mexico sends" its "drug dealers" and "rapists" to infect the United States. But now I see that mental rot taking root in the mind of many Reps whom I knew just as recently as a year or two ago admitting that most illegal aliens come to the US to find work and support their families.
The intensity of hatred toward people of color and women coming from Trump and his supporters would have shocked Reagan and sent Lincoln to despair. Both were aware of racism and went out of their way not to poke racists in the eye, but neither embraced racists or racism. Trump embraces both. Whatever the cost (short of bloodshed and the like) Trump must be defeated, even if that cost includes the literal destruction of the Republican Party. A fate which it is doing everything these days to deserve.
Fortunately, quite a few Reps are unalterably opposed to Trump. It could only be 10-15% but that might be enough to tip it to Hillary, provided she can escape the Sanders quagmire. If she can't and Bernie ends up not supporting Hillary then it's very possible Trump could win in what would effectively be a repeat of the how Gore lost to Bush in 2000, courtesy of Nader.
Hillary should have agreed to the Bernie debate instead. He has said he won't touch the emails till the criminal investigation (read FBI) isn't complete yet. This will become 2 hours of Hillary-bashing from the conspiratorial right (Bill as a rapist, Benghazi, emails, Iraq) and the left (Wall St, NAFTA, superpredators, Iraq).
Either way, a fun watch and should give us an idea of what Trump is planning for Bernie. Bernie's 1st Dem debate was a disaster and he improved slightly each time, so I don't expect him to do too well but it's Trump, who knows what will happen.
Either way, a fun watch and should give us an idea of what Trump is planning for Bernie. Bernie's 1st Dem debate was a disaster and he improved slightly each time, so I don't expect him to do too well but it's Trump, who knows what will happen.
Hillary's statement on the report:
Vast right-wing conspiracy
She was the 1st with a homebrewed server not just a personal email. ore importantly, the rules were changed after Powell left office so it's comparing apples and oranges. State staffers who raised the issue were literally told that the SoS is their boss, they should shut up.
The use of her personal email was known to some but not all (hence the shut up to those who raised questions). These same people were also told that it had been approved but it never was.
Her aides themselves shut down the server several times sine they suspected a hack. Surely prudence dictates that you trust the State Department's security?
She did not release all emails to the investigation and her staffers did not cooperate.
Everything I've stated is straight from the Democrat IG's report.
Vast right-wing conspiracy
She was the 1st with a homebrewed server not just a personal email. ore importantly, the rules were changed after Powell left office so it's comparing apples and oranges. State staffers who raised the issue were literally told that the SoS is their boss, they should shut up.
The use of her personal email was known to some but not all (hence the shut up to those who raised questions). These same people were also told that it had been approved but it never was.
Her aides themselves shut down the server several times sine they suspected a hack. Surely prudence dictates that you trust the State Department's security?
She did not release all emails to the investigation and her staffers did not cooperate.
Everything I've stated is straight from the Democrat IG's report.
The impression from the outside looking in is that Trump's rise is the natural production of several trends which have come to dominate the Republican Party since at least Obama's first election and probably since 9/11. That he hasn't hijacked the party's agenda so much as emerged from it. How did it get like this? When did being an asshole become a virtue in Republican politics?
I suspected she would decline the debate invitation since she seems to be more focused on Trump. That said, Bernie is right to go after her since the nomination is still not locked up and Californians, as citizens of the biggest state, have a right to a debate about issues that affect the state before they vote. I'd imagine the email scandal being in the news will be another reason she may attempt to avoid getting further embarrassed in a debate with Sanders where he constantly demands she release her speech transcripts.
I will grudgingly vote for Trump and I have no hatred. I do not believe that is what his candidacy is built upon, either. The most important factors that will get anyone elected this time around are:
1) job creation
2) strong foreign policy
I think Trump is perceived as strong on both counts by voters. Trump may be an idiot, but he's not a racist. People are trying to paint his rightful opposition to ILLEGAL immigration as racism, but it's not. Our laws should be respected and our border should be secure. From all ILLEGAL immigrants, regardless of their race.
Not afraid, it's just at this point what would she gain from such a debate? It's Bernie who needs the exposure, not her.
You don't think Reagan's demonization of the 'welfare queens', 'states right' race baiting politics has anything to do with the rise of Trump?
See, this is what I just don't get. You seem a principled and well meaning man from your posts, and I've no doubt that there are plenty of decent human beings with a conservative political leaning in the GOP rank, but this collective 'how did this happen' from you guys is just baffling, it's like there's zero self-introspection there. From Tricky Dick's Southern strategy to Reagan's states right rhetorics, your party in pursuit of the highest office in the land have embraced the lowest denominations of American society, and by pandering to them stray far far away from the vision of Lincoln and his peers. To put the name of the two in the same sentence as if they share the same values is insulting to Abe to say the least, despite, of course, his moderation in emancipation compared to the contemporary Radical Republicans. Progressive Republicanism died with Nixon, in many aspects the last of American truly liberal presidents.
As for this election, most of the Bernie folks will come home, bar the Naderites. Gary Johnson should draw enough Republicans to make it a non contest. Won't stop pundits working themselves into a frenzy with polls and a collective liberal panic during the summer. Every Democratic nominee have outperformed the polling average by 2 points or more since 1992. This is their last hurrah, but there's simply not enough angry white men to get Trump to office.
Reagan was happy to use hatred and mistrust of minorities to his own advantage. Welfare queens springs to mind.
Ah, IB beat me to it. Saint Reagan will never go away, will he?
He advocated banning all Muslims from coming to the US. He may not be racist but his statements are hugely xenophobic... which isn't actually any less of an issue.
On Nixon:
I think you should separate the open race-baiting during the campaign and the mixed record on domestic policies. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, signed the supported and signed the equal rights amendement, and started the 1st federal affirmative action policy.
He also seriously considered a policy Bernie dare not mention today - universal basic income.
I thought Romney was the last hurrah?
There's a bigger issue than what would Hillary or Bernie gain from debating - it's a way for the democratic process and the exchange of ideas to play out before the general public - this time with issues relevant to the nations biggest state and the 8th largest economy in the world. I'm not surprised she said no, but she should've said yes, especially if she believes she will be the nominee and that a debate won't affect the final outcome of the Dem nominating process.
Can you imagine, Reagan, with all the pomp and symbolism he could muster, launched his general election campaign in of all places, Philadelphia, Mississippi. Yes that one, the same place where 15 years before 3 civil rights workers, 2 white and one black, were taken out of their car and brutally murdered by the locals. Masked by some "states´rights" propaganda . . . his message was crystal clear to white America.
Can you imagine what an absolute cnut of a person you have to be to do something like that. Not even Trump would be capable of that.
That's why I said it died with Nixon. He was the last liberal president when it comes to domestic policies, in many ways even more than LBJ. Probably you misunderstood my phrasing. Tricky Dick was openly disdained with the 'right wing kooks' and eviscerated Reagan as a know nothing con man.
I thought Romney was the last hurrah?
Well, much the same way every election is 'the most important election in our lifetime'. But I do think shifting demographics means that if the GOP can't ride white anger to office this election, they are done on a presidential level, for a good while, like the Dems after CRA's passage. The electoral math is just not there.
On Nixon:
I think you should separate the open race-baiting during the campaign and the mixed record on domestic policies. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, signed the supported and signed the equal rights amendement, and started the 1st federal affirmative action policy.
He also seriously considered a policy Bernie dare not mention today - universal basic income.
I thought Romney was the last hurrah?
Yes but Nixon was also a seriously disturbed criminal who green-lighted illegal wiretapping, burglaries, illegal use of government to get back at 'enemies', etc. so I wouldn't say he's better than Trump!
He already did. Maddow had a long segment on it
What did Trump do to equal those depths of evil?
I'm currently arguing against someone on reddit who think Warren is a plant of the establishment who makes speeches for public consumption, votes because all outcomes are pre-decided, but actually keeps the status quo because she didn't endorse. So why is Bernie better?
FFS.
Frankly, standing here in EU I cannot fathom how a sane person would vote for Trump. He seems more suitable for a circus manager than POTUS. And then I read that Peter Thiel is one of his delegates for California. FFS.
@berbatrick Have you checked his profile? Maybe a Trumpkin in disguise?
Anyway, s4p is just an increasingly shrinking minority of Sanders's support. Even if every single one of that sub voted for him, it accounts for little more than 2% of his votes.
Anyway, s4p is just an increasingly shrinking minority of Sanders's support. Even if every single one of that sub voted for him, it accounts for little more than 2% of his votes.
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.
Nope though I thought so too,
"Trump is every bit as establishment as Clinton. The whole pretense that he's not is ridiculous."
"He's in as a spoiler for Clinton in the first place, in all likelihood."
Far left conspiracy nut I'd guess.
Either way it's gone on enough that I can ignore. My main fight is with the Trump crossover.
To be fair, the Dems are no saints when it comes to race.
No one argues that Reagan is a saint. No one is saint. Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln all had issues of various kinds. Churchill drank excessively and put in a very bad foot on a number of fronts. JFK and MLK, no saints either.
Clinton, clearly no saint, but still did a fairly decent job all things considered. He's somewhat deified by Dems today in somewhat the same way Reagan is deified by Reps to this day, but Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan would be out step with the Dem and Rep Parties of today. Bill is well to the right of today's Dem Party as Ronald (whom I think Ronaldo was named after) is well to the left of today's Rep Party. That doesn't make them good or bad people by today's standards, but each were flawed men in the personal lives and made serious mistakes in the public lives. They got some things done that, on the whole, were a net positive for their country, but above all they viewed bipartisan compromise (Reagan on tax increases and Clinton on welfare reform) as a good thing. For today's Dem and Rep Parties, compromise is a dirty word. But let's be clear -- the Rep Party has complete lost its mind. And its way.
Reagan was just as much a slimy pol as all the others. He is almost deified by modern republicans so , yes, plenty think of him as a saint. The reverence with which repubs speak of him is mental.
To your other post above, from what I recall he didn't liberalize abortion willingly, he always felt tricked into it and never actually supported abortion.
To your other post above, from what I recall he didn't liberalize abortion willingly, he always felt tricked into it and never actually supported abortion.
If nothing else, he's got balls, and he's not afraid to get them out and show everybody.
Once you get past the hair and the oversize persona, maybe there is a decent human being under there... maybe. We know Hilary's soul has been sold many times over to the point that she has no humanity left.
I can't know the man's heart, but the evidence that Trump is a racist is not scant.
For several years he berated Obama for being a Muslim born in Kenya, despite there being zero evidence whatsoever for this outrageous claim. No honest person can argue that Trump's "birtherism" was not intended to appeal to racist apprehensions of Obama. No one had ever accused of Clinton or Carter or Woodrow Wilson of being of dubious proper birth or religious affiliation. It was clearly designed to cast a shadow over Obama's legitimacy as a president. True, Trump went after Cruz but at least on that account Cruz freely acknowledged that he was born in Canada. (And, by the way, Cruz's defense of his eligibility under the natural born citizen clause is clearly out of step with the intent of the framers.)
With respect to Mexicans, illegal aliens to be sure, Trump has clearly struck a racial nerve in the psyche of Americans who bear racial animus toward Mexican-Americans. He has argued against the mainstream interpretation of the 14th Amendment that individuals born in the United States are necessarily entitled to citizenship. He has argued for mass deportation. He has argued for a beautiful wall. Anyone living in California or Texas right now will tell you that we're not being overrun by Mexicans. Those who do come here, illegally to be clear, mostly come for work. And the actual migration numbers today tell a very different story than the one Trump wants you to believe. Long story short, Trump may not be an actual racist but he clearly relies heavily on racist rhetoric to appeal to actual racists. I hear anti-Mexican rhetoric today that I did not hear 10 years ago, when we actually had a problem.
As for "job creation" and "strong foreign policy" I'm curious what substantive policies you believe Trump has proposed to create jobs and restore our credibility around the world. I will be civil when I respond to your reply when I log back on in an hour or two.
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
- Status