2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Obama wasn't up against a scandal and a bifurcated party. Moreover, the principle of Democracy of allowing voters to see the exchange of ideas is always a good thing.
Two similar decisions need no have the same reasoning behind. I think she cannot handle herself very well during debates and will become easy pray for Trump. I surely hope I am wrong. Not to mention it appears he will have serious ammunition against her, again based on her past mistakes.
Trump said it would and Bernie's team are on TV now saying they are in discussions with the Trump campaign to make it happen. That's not to say Trump won't chicken out at the last moment when he realizes how shit he is at actually debating policy positions.
They exchanged ideas 8 times before, oh wait, actually it's 1 debate played out 8 different times.
Oh and the Obama part, not true. 1) Rev. Wright and 2) Party Unity My Ass
She handled herself just fine the last 8 debates. Same thing played out before NY, didn't change the outcome one bit, no need to concede the media cycle to Sanders.
And the idea of Drumpf claiming the moral high ground when it comes to personal baggage is... queer, to say the least.
Three different aides of him have told the media upon being contacted that it was a joke, said to, you guess it, Jimmy fecking Kimmel.
Bernie's team said all kinds of stuff. They went ahead and arrange the debate with Fox News, only to be left cold cocked.
Last edited:
Debates tend to be location specific and California hasn't had one. Would be great if Hillary cared enough about the nation's biggest state and the #8 economy in the world to debate Bernie about California specific issues.
Let's face it, if Hillary thinks one more debate will sink her, she's in deeper shit than we previously thought.
uh-huh, despite polls indicating that she has CA sown up you think she needs to do more to try and win it?
The arrogance and self-importance is nauseating. Once again, it isn't about her - its about furthering the debate, which one would have to be pretty cynical to obstruct. If she thinks she will crumble by debating him then that's her problem.
Hillary has one thing in common with Reagan.
Did he?
Should n't the people who hate Hillary, hate Biden too? He is as much a politician as her with questionable stances and actions in the past. He too voted for Iraq war.
Except that in this case it is not just personal baggage. She was a high ranking government official at the time. And her decision can be considered as threatening national security. Now, be certain that Drumpf may not know what an email server is, but he will use and abuse it when time comes.
Strong leadership is singling out anyone that is a non-white male? The man plays on the fears peddled by far right extremist ideology, which you're seemingly approving of. He's an arrogant, egotistical, thin-skinned bully that will say anything about another but can't handle the give back. He often threatens any perceived opposition with personal insults, full-on attacks, legal pursuits, etc. This whole cycle is simply the worship of the cult of Trump, which he craves due to a massive insecurity complex, and has put the negatives of American society on the forefront with mass aplomb. He's clearly the least presidential candidate in the nation's history, and that's considering some of the clowns that have ran. Even Ted Cruz, as cunningly evil and deluded as he is, had a slightly more presidential act.
--But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html
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
And surely Bernie's campaign people (and him) would envision this possibility. Last thing Bernie wants is his supporting base moving to Trump's side in the GE. He'd much rather the DNC nominee win election and thus I fully believe he'll go all out to provoke and attack Trump in a debate. Anything else and he is a traitor to his "party," Benedict Bernie forever.
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
And surely Bernie's campaign people (and him) would envision this possibility. Last thing Bernie wants is his supporting base moving to Trump's side in the GE. He'd much rather the DNC nominee win election and thus I fully believe he'll go all out to provoke and attack Trump in a debate. Anything else and he is a traitor to his "party," Benedict Bernie forever.
People believe this nonsense. Carson is clearly pandering to the fears perpetuated on the nation.
Read my post more closely, I believe that the current climate is receptive to strong leadership and one factor in Trump's unexpected rise. Whether Trump can provide strong leadership, I am unsure.
I don't agree with the charges of racism and divisiveness. If he can bring prosperity, unity will follow. Let's hope.
The same way they debated about New York specific issues, or New Hampshire specific issues?
Don't be obtuse, you are smarter than this. It's about media exposure and nothing else.
Candidates frequently use local issues that are relevant to constituents in a particular state. See Hillarys comments about Flint, Coal mines, clean energy as examples.
2/10. Equivalent to the time Ben Foster conceded to a goal kick from Paul Robinson.
I doubt anyone can win by a landslide nowadays, the two parties get closer and closer on issues and are often splitting political hairs. It's going to be decided by a few percentage points worth of undecideds as usual.
Yes, but because that was an obvious and cheap way to score point with the public. Show me one time after that where either of them focus on states issue.
It's funny, all the Rs refused to debate even before NY, saying that it's a waste of time and no one bats an eye. Hillary now by all intents and purposes is the presumptive nominee, yet apparently she refused to debate Sanders because she's afraid, when he didn't do jack 8 times prior. By the time polls close in NJ, she'll be officially the nominee, regardless of the result in CA, where she leads by double digits. So what's she afraid of?
Or, maybe, the obvious answer is that no nominee ever waste time debating the losers, when they can fundraise, do events on swing states, target demographics, things that actually help them in, you know, the general. Occam's razor and all that.
There seems to be something particular to Hillary that attracts hate above and beyond reason. Maybe something to do with her public persona and speaking mannerisms, I don't really get it.
I prefer what Sanders said a while back. All contenders across both parties should debate each other during the primary process during a series of bipartisan debates. Now that's an amazing idea since candidates often trash the other party in debates - now they would have to debate them face to face.
Yes, I'm all for that too, and the moderators should do what Fox did to Drumpf, prepare relevant graphics, facts and numbers to challenge candidates on the spot.
The current debate format is retarded, especially with the audience that couldn't keep their mouths shut.
Really. And no one reads the bible like The Do
It´s pretty much saying what I am, that yes, the Republican party has swung to the right since Reagan . . . and who do you think started this whole swing. Yes, Saint Ronnie. That´s why he´s revered by all these douchebags. As a university student during Reagan´s rein, believe me, he was a massive swing to the right and clearly, the beginning of what you have now. After illegally sabotaging Carter´s presidency and negotiations with the Iranians, you knew this actor and his movement were capable of anything, as we saw them arming the Iranians a few years later, and while maybe not participating in the actual drug trade, they cast a blind eye to the massive flood of cocaine meanwhile profits were scraped off for the Contras. Like I said, these guys were capable of anything, and very right wing.
They loosed the likes of young Rove, Abrahamoff, Rex Reed, Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich . . . very very white, very right wing, blue eyed believers in the Reagan Revolution, the future of Republican politics, incredibly capable of anything, setting the hardcore conservative, religious, privatisation, deregulation, "free" markets and shunting off loads of government money to their business friends . . . which of course all led up to the meltdown of 2008 (with help from Bill Clinton).
The worship and massive funding of the military and more adventurism all got a huge boost in the Reagan presidency. Can you imagine a psycho like Oliver North with so much hidden military power. Jesus fook! It´s like imagining Donald Trump as the president. Insane.
And then of course the big right wing religious push started with Reagan as well, especially with Jerry Falwell and the moral majority and similar hucksters like the horribly laughable Pat Robertson. Southern conmen at their finest, pushing hardcore right wing values, capitalistic christianity, and more bible in the state . . . while getting extremely rich doing it.
I already mentioned Reagan beginning his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi and what message that sent to the white man. Watch that video that infinite boredom posted. You can just feel the white supremacism dripping from those Reagan rallies. A disgusting tone of angry, ambitious lily whiteness.
You can look at the modern Republican party and the angry white Trump hordes . . . brought to you by Ronald Reagan.
Last edited:
He was a known advocate for campaign finance reform for decades, which marks a big difference to Hillary. I'm not sure I agree with the statement though. He had great numbers for a candidate who wasn't running but at that time it was Hillary's numbers he was eating into not Bernie's (I think this was around July-August last year.
Election aside, I think I love this man more than I realized.
Most people in the US won't care or understand the importance of it, certainly the majority of conservatives, but ideologies aside, having a sitting US president mingling with the people of a country wrongfully wracked by 20 years of war directly/indirectly involved the US is a watershed moment. The energy and goodwill he generates was something I've not seen before there, and the US will lose not just its executive but an excellent statesman that they don't appreciate enough due to partisanship.
https://li.st/l/5akUvlu4M8C5AFA3Df99Ei
Most people in the US won't care or understand the importance of it, certainly the majority of conservatives, but ideologies aside, having a sitting US president mingling with the people of a country wrongfully wracked by 20 years of war directly/indirectly involved the US is a watershed moment. The energy and goodwill he generates was something I've not seen before there, and the US will lose not just its executive but an excellent statesman that they don't appreciate enough due to partisanship.
https://li.st/l/5akUvlu4M8C5AFA3Df99Ei
Plus 1 to the man who brought hip hop to white house . . . and Vietnam. Big change from when our supposed heroes were indiscriminately dropping bombs on these people. What a relief from America´s leaders waving their dick around to make America great again.
I have a very minor gripe with Obama cause he didn't invite Young Jeezy to perform "My President is Black" in the Oval Office
Wasn´t Chuck D pissed off a while ago that he couldn´t get an invite to the White House?
It would´ve been brilliant to have invited him over to chill with Barry and celebrate the 20 year anniversary of the release of Fear of a Black Planet. Field a few questions from the press corp together and bask in the collective conniption of Fox News and right wing America, ha ha.
C'mon Barack, it´s not too late!
Election aside, I think I love this man more than I realized.
Most people in the US won't care or understand the importance of it, certainly the majority of conservatives, but ideologies aside, having a sitting US president mingling with the people of a country wrongfully wracked by 20 years of war directly/indirectly involved the US is a watershed moment. The energy and goodwill he generates was something I've not seen before there, and the US will lose not just its executive but an excellent statesman that they don't appreciate enough due to partisanship.
https://li.st/l/5akUvlu4M8C5AFA3Df99Ei
Anthony Bourdain is great - I really like him as well.
The Republican Party has swung significantly to the right after Reagan. But there's no doubt that the inflection point you're really referring to began in 1964 with Goldwater. No boring history lesson for you caftards today, but Goldwater was a hard core right winger in 1964 (though in the 1980s he turned hard left, at least for a Republican). Nixon, a loathesome creature without any question, left a long record of "liberal achievements" and I'll leave it up to you to verify this wild claim with a quick google search. Ford, meh, but he was no right-winger. Reagan's rhetoric was right-wingish, but he'd be considered a "RINO" by today's Republican cretins, although they know to pay tribute to his name even while they have no real comprehension of his record either as potus or as governor of California. I've spoken to Jerry Brown about Reagan on several occasions and I can tell you Jerry respects and praises much of what Reagan got done as potus and as governor.
You really have to get past the blinkers. It's easy to get emotional about politics, as Trump's idiotic worshippers prove every day, but when a man is dead it's appropriate to view his record with clear eyes, wins and warts. Reagan disgraced the country with the Iran-country deal and his lack of interest in dealing with AIDS (ironic, as he was known in Hollywood to be accepting of gays and he defended gays in his office who were outed in the last few years of his tenure governor) but you have to look at his willingness to raise taxes to shore up Social Security and other bipartisan accomplishments before condemning him as the moron you paint him to be.
As for today, I cannot deny the insanity that has descended on the Republicans. I know quite a few Reps who can never vote for Trump, but they're vastly outnumbered by those who can. And will. Shame and eternal dishonor.
Piggybacking on @InfiniteBoredom's post, looking back, one can make a strong case for Obama being a top 3 president post WW2. Only Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson are serious competitors IMO.
A lot of the damage Clinton did was evident only long after Bush was in office. Or in other words:
"it is too soon to say" - Zhou en Lai in the 1950s on the success of the French Revolution*
*I'm aware this has been debunked.
That's why I think trump was the best thing to the party, they need to change the mentality and they need to unload all the religious fanatics, people say GOP are a right wing party but in my opinion I don't really know what they are anymore, they are like the democrats under the big corporations payroll and they don't have an ideology like left/right - socialism/social democrat, I see any religious fanatic will have a say and that's why we need a strong leadership in the party to change, which Trump is NOT the man. I really hope the Trump effect shakes the roots of this party to a new GOP even if we lose the elections, electing younger people to lead the party would be a great start.
- Status