Presidential Race 2016

[Chilli Dipper]

17 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

His choices may be somewhat limited by the fact that most of the people that have the intelligence and skill-sets that Trump needs find him to be a repulsive dirtbag and an embarrassment.  

At the same time, every sniveling opportunist in the party willing to bet their future on Trump not making it to the end of his term will be fighting to be one step away from the presidency.

7 minutes ago, Gunther said:

His unfavorables are an impediment, to be sure.  But given that Hillary is also a repulsive dirtbag and an embarrassment, I think that's a wash.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Does Trump want Kasich in the VP debates with how mellow Kasich has been in the Primaries? Does that help even Trump out with some of the voters who find him too offensive? Kasich's history is more inline with mainstream Republicans. Would that backfire on Trump's message of being anti-establishment?

Kind of wondered the same things myself. He is the only one that isn't a criminal, though. 

[saevel25]

The Hungry for Power Games has seen two more fallen. 

[Braivo]

13 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

His choices may be somewhat limited by the fact that most of the people that have the intelligence and skill-sets that Trump needs find him to be a repulsive dirtbag and an embarrassment.  

His endorsement list includes 6 active or former senators, 17 current and former representatives, 6 current or former military generals, 6 sitting governors and 4 former governors, and prominent academics such as Ben Carson. These are public officials with a great deal of their reputation at stake. Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump and staked his long political career on his candidacy. Sessions is one of the smartest, most respected people in congress. 

13 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

At the same time, every sniveling opportunist in the party willing to bet their future on Trump not making it to the end of his term will be fighting to be one step away from the presidency.

The Secret Service will have their work cut out for them this go around. 

[RandallT]

Just watch the first 30 seconds of this.  A good reminder that experts don't really know what to expect this election. In June 2015, most elite opinion thought that Trump winning the Republican was simply absurd, not even worthy of consideration. The laughter that Trump had the best chance of all Republicans to win the general election at that point (quite a few had not formally entered the race by that point) was derisive.  Watch the woman to Maher's right after Coulter says Trump is the best current nominee.

Yet here we are. The people spoke. It shows a total disconnect between how the masses look at things vs. how elite opinion views things. This past year has certainly been eye-opening to me (I wouldn't have guessed Trump would win either). And we should listen to these same people to predict what will happen in 2016?

[nevets88]

17 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Just watch the first 30 seconds of this.  A good reminder that experts don't really know what to expect this election. In June 2015, most elite opinion thought that Trump winning the Republican was simply absurd, not even worthy of consideration. The laughter that Trump had the best chance of all Republicans to win the general election at that point (quite a few had not formally entered the race by that point) was derisive.  Watch the woman to Maher's right after Coulter says Trump is the best current nominee.

Yet here we are. The people spoke. It shows a total disconnect between how the masses look at things vs. how elite opinion views things. This past year has certainly been eye-opening to me (I wouldn't have guessed Trump would win either). And we should listen to these same people to predict what will happen in 2016?

Coulter's got a point @ 01:30 as well. When Sanders talks about free university, I think, yeah, right, ooookay, but his general message appeals to those tired of the establishment status quo, everything's fine, let's keep it going the way it is folks for whom everything is working out great.

I've been saying most of the MSM is clueless for months, they're just riling you up for ratings and to be "relevant".

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Braivo said:

Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump and staked his long political career on his candidacy. Sessions is one of the smartest, most respected people in congress.

He's also one of the most right wing congressman out there. If Trump wants a candidate to bring in the extreme conservatives, especially on the social issues, then it's a good pick.

26 minutes ago, RandallT said:

The laughter that Trump had the best chance of all Republicans to win the general election at that point (quite a few had not formally entered the race by that point) was derisive.  Watch the woman to Maher's right after Coulter says Trump is the best current nominee.

Also note that show hosted by one of the most crazy left wing nut jobs out there. I could see that show being more derisive just because they were talking about anything associated with the GOP.

 

 

 

[Chilli Dipper]

The fact that Ann Coulter predicted Trump's rise falls more into the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" category more than anything else.

We gravely underestimated the appeal of dog-whistle xenophobia when delivered by a boastful speaker, and we overestimated the structural strength of the Republican Party. After their post-mortem of the 2012 election, the concluded they couldn't win the presidency without expanding from their core demographics; when Trump entered the race to rile up the crazies and do the exact opposite of what the party prescribed, no one in the GOP had a plan to react to it.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

He's also one of the most right wing congressman out there. If Trump wants a candidate to bring in the extreme conservatives, especially on the social issues, then it's a good pick.

Also note that show hosted by one of the most crazy left wing nut jobs out there. I could see that show being more derisive just because they were talking about anything associated with the GOP.

So, does that mean all left wings are "nut jobs", but the host is the craziest? Or is he the most crazy nut job who is left winged?

Yeah, people thought I was crazy to think that Trump would win the GOP nomination a few months ago too.

[saevel25]

Just now, Lihu said:

So, does that mean all left wings are "nut jobs", but the host is the craziest? Or was it the most crazy nut job who is left winged?

He's a nut job who is left wing ;)

[phillyk]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 0:33 PM, rehmwa said:

 

it's not your business if someone chooses to own a gun

 

If Hillary chooses Bernie for VP, I think they'd win the GE regardless of who Trump chooses.  I doubt that'd happen, but I'd be in favor of it.

Sorry, I and all the police officers have a big problem if a crazy or criminal can buy a gun.  That risks the lives of many people, not just one or two.
 

[newtogolf]

16 minutes ago, phillyk said:

If Hillary chooses Bernie for VP, I think they'd win the GE regardless of who Trump chooses.  I doubt that'd happen, but I'd be in favor of it.

Sorry, I and all the police officers have a big problem if a crazy or criminal can buy a gun.  That risks the lives of many people, not just one or two.
 

Best life insurance Hillary can get is to make Joe Biden her V.P.  Old Joe has kept Obama alive for the last eight years.  

[rehmwa]

27 minutes ago, phillyk said:

If Hillary chooses Bernie for VP, I think they'd win the GE regardless of who Trump chooses.  I doubt that'd happen, but I'd be in favor of it.

Sorry, I and all the police officers have a big problem if a crazy or criminal can buy a gun.  That risks the lives of many people, not just one or two.
 

Oh my god you people.  I have the right to own property, that's it.  IF, by my actions (I commit a felony or otherwise) then those rights can be removed.  But you sure as heck can't do it if I've done nothing wrong.  You can't do it arbitrarily.  you sure can't fix the system so that it's darn near impossible.  That should go for any property, including firearms.  My freedoms should extend up until they start to infringe on another's - but there they should stop.  So no kidding (CONVICTED felon for a violent crime, absolutely.  A "Crazy" as you put it so kindly - you need to be VERY careful on how you define crazy - that's a nasty point that can be abused in so many ways.  If they are crazy in a way that clearly demonstrates infringing on others - absolutely).

Most everything comes down to how it's implemented and whether that system can be abused easily or not.  That's one thing I have a real hard time about with hardcore liberals.  If you disagree on conservative reasons, then you are treated like a fanatical hardcore evangelical.  If you disagree on freedom reasons, then you are treated like a raving anarchist.  There is no acknowledgment of process, common sense, or anything else.

I get so sick of strawman arguments.  I'll stay out of this thread as it's now likely to turn to those all the time.

 

What kills me is I make a simple point about how both sides abuse the system by picking and choosing which areas they want to legislate to control the people and take away their freedoms.  I made a list showing that both sides are guilty.  So the responses I get aren't on the overall philosophy, it's actually people picking and choosing which specific items they take exception with - which is my entire point.  But they argue them by making up an extreme position.  stop proving my main point, I thought this crowd was deeper than that.  No wonder we are getting the candidates we have today.

[phillyk]

13 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Oh my god you people.  I have the right to own property, that's it.  IF, by my actions (I commit a felony or otherwise) then those rights can be removed.  But you sure as heck can't do it if I've done nothing wrong.  You can't do it arbitrarily.  you sure can't fix the system so that it's darn near impossible.  That should go for any property, including firearms.  My freedoms should extend up until they start to infringe on another's - but there they should stop.  So no kidding (CONVICTED felon for a violent crime, absolutely.  A "Crazy" as you put it so kindly - you need to be VERY careful on how you define crazy - that's a nasty point that can be abused in so many ways.  If they are crazy in a way that clearly demonstrates infringing on others - absolutely).

Most everything comes down to how it's implemented and whether that system can be abused easily or not.  That's one thing I have a real hard time about with hardcore liberals.  If you disagree on conservative reasons, then you are treated like a fanatical hardcore evangelical.  If you disagree on freedom reasons, then you are treated like a raving anarchist.  There is no acknowledgment of process, common sense, or anything else.

I get so sick of strawman arguments.  I'll stay out of this thread as it's now likely to turn to those all the time.

 

What kills me is I make a simple point about how both sides abuse the system by picking and choosing which areas they want to legislate to control the people and take away their freedoms.  I made a list showing that both sides are guilty.  So the responses I get aren't on the overall philosophy, it's actually people picking and choosing which specific items they take exception with - which is my entire point.  But they argue them by making up an extreme position.  stop proving my main point, I thought this crowd was deeper than that.  No wonder we are getting the candidates we have today.

I'm not saying one party does it more than the other, I know they are both equally guilty.  But, it must be that way so we can draw the line on bounds to individual rights.  No one likes the line, but it has to go somewhere.  Extreme situations make that line easier to draw.

 

49 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Best life insurance Hillary can get is to make Joe Biden her V.P.  Old Joe has kept Obama alive for the last eight years.  

Wait, who's that?...

[rkim291968]

6 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The fact that Ann Coulter predicted Trump's rise falls more into the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" category more than anything else.

We gravely underestimated the appeal of dog-whistle xenophobia when delivered by a boastful speaker, and we overestimated the structural strength of the Republican Party. After their post-mortem of the 2012 election, the concluded they couldn't win the presidency without expanding from their core demographics; when Trump entered the race to rile up the crazies and do the exact opposite of what the party prescribed, no one in the GOP had a plan to react to it.

Trump rode the perfect wave.  There were just too many GOP candidates which helped Trump to latch on a movement.  Then, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, late night shows all gave Trump loads of free media time.   In case of Trump, even a bad press was a good press.   

Will Trump win the general election?   He would need another perfect wave.   I don't see that happening.   The field is down to two - Clinton & Trump.   Media will likely focus on the two on more even footing.   Clinton is a far more formidable foe than all other GOP candidates Trump faced.   

[rkim291968]

Now that we are down to the two candidates, Clinton and Trump, who will likely to win the 2016 general election?  Who will you vote for?

[pumaAttack]

Clinton!  Go Hill go!

[SavvySwede]

9 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

Now that we are down to the two candidates, Clinton and Trump, who will likely to win the 2016 general election?  Who will you vote for?

Bernie is still in the race. Superdelegates don't count until the convention.