Presidential Race 2016

[Elmer]

It is always good to know that your candidate is endorsed by remaining member of GWB's "Axis of Evil"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/31/north-korean-state-media-offers-support-for-wise-politician-donald-trump/

 

Makes you wonder how he expects to work with either side when he simply will not act "presidential". 

"As a rule, a show of public disrespect for judicial authority is a foolish litigation strategy."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-judge-1464715439

[bplewis24]

On 5/27/2016 at 6:11 PM, Gunther said:

Sounds like you had a tough week, didn't quite achieve the mediocrity your union demands from you.  So, you focus your ire on a country to which you don't belong.  Classy.

Focus on your own socialist PM who likes to beat up opposition women in Parliament.  That will serve you better in the long run.

I find the delusion it takes to believe the bolded portion pretty startling. Is that a joke?  Or are you as delusional as the opposition members who wanted the incident "investigated" in Parliament?

On 5/28/2016 at 8:14 AM, newtogolf said:

To some degree you're correct, Trump doesn't represent traditional Republicans well but he's a much better option for us than Hillary or Bernie.  I'd vote for Obama or GW before I'd vote for Hillary or Bernie.  

Trump isn't a better option than a ham sandwich for President, let alone Hillary or Bernie.  He's honestly a much worse option than several of the folks he was running against for the GOP nomination, including Kasich, Rubio, Bush, and a few others.  Trump represents the Frankenstein's monster that the party has been creating (through basic echo-chamber fear-mongering) for years now.  There is not a single objective measure by which Trump is a better candidate than Hillary or Bernie that translates into actual political capital.  He doesn't understand policy, he has an incredibly immature and volatile temperament, he is clueless on foreign policy, and he is a classic narcissist who is either deluded by it or is willing to lie, pathologically, to convince others.  And to the extent he has taken on conservative positions, he has done so at the expense of conflicting positions he took years--and sometimes months--earlier*.  He is a disaster waiting to happen, and yet fully represents the current GOP base.

*Incidentally, this is part of the problem with Hillary also: she has co-opted Bernie's platform on a number of issues to be more progressive, conflicting with positions she took (or equivocated on) in prior administrations or political eras.

Edited May 31, 2016 by bplewis24

[Gunther]

22 minutes ago, bplewis24 said:

I find the delusion it takes to believe the bolded portion pretty startling. Is that a joke?  Or are you as delusional as the opposition members who wanted the incident "investigated" in Parliament?

Well yes, obviously I embellished for effect as I don't believe the dude actually enjoys beating up women.  But there is no question he lost his cool and acted in a crude, unstatesman-like manner for that brief instant.  He was getting through that gauntlet come hell or high water and he didn't give a thought to who was in his way.  

[Ernest Jones]

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

Well yes, obviously I embellished for effect as I don't believe the dude actually enjoys beating up women.  But there is no question he lost his cool and acted in a crude, unstatesman-like manner for that brief instant.  He was getting through that gauntlet come hell or high water and he didn't give a thought to who was in his way.  

See, that's telling, I don't have to embellish anything to trash Trump, I can just quote him. 

 

[Dave2512]

No need to embellish there are numerous clips of Trump contradicting himself. He says things even he doesn't agree with, strange stuff.

[Gunther]

28 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

See, that's telling, I don't have to embellish anything to trash Trump, I can just quote him. 

 

If that were true, I wouldn't ever respond to you.  You're a flame-thrower of the highest order but my biggest problem with you is that you insult every Trump voter during your lunatic rants, and you'd do the same for any conservative candidate.  

I'm fine with your generally juvenile opinions on US politics but I do take take issue with your continued nasty, and obviously malicious mischaracterization of half of the US population, although I do my best to ignore you.  

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I'm fine with your generally juvenile opinions on US politics but I do take take issue with your continued nasty, and obviously malicious mischaracterization of half of the US population, although I do my best to ignore you.  

Half?

Hard-Core Trump supporters are 33% of the 27% of eligible voters who voted in the GOP primary. Only 27% of the nation identifies as Republican. It's not even close to half. I could say that both parties are minorities in that 44% of the nation identifies as Independent. 

Not to say I support our Canadian friend from the north bashing our politics for what ever strange reason he thinks  

 

[phan52]

Trump supporters are irrational, illustrated by the Rolling Thunder people over the weekend whose rally was to illuminate prisoner-of-war and missing-in-action issues. Meanwhile they are head-over-heels for a guy who said about John McCain, "I like people that weren't captured, OK?" This is just the latest example. He can say anything and they don't care. That's irrational.

[Golfingdad]

If you want to talk about the 2016 presidential election here then, as far as I'm concerned, the only criteria need be that you're a tst member.  Who gives a shit what country somebody is from?

[Gunther]

24 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Half?

Hard-Core Trump supporters are 33% of the 27% of eligible voters who voted in the GOP primary. Only 27% of the nation identifies as Republican. It's not even close to half. I could say that both parties are minorities in that 44% of the nation identifies as Independent. 

Not to say I support our Canadian friend from the north bashing our politics for what ever strange reason he thinks  

 

Ok, 45%.  Sure, only a third typically vote but the country is divided pretty much in half along those political lines, even if they don't identify as such in their party affiliation.  I don't think my characterization of half was too much of a stretch, while admitting it wasn't 100% accurate

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/18/fox-news-poll-trump-tops-clinton-both-seen-as-deeply-flawed-candidates.html

[saevel25]

26 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Ok, 45%.  Sure, only a third typically vote but the country is divided pretty much in half along those political lines, even if they don't identify as such in their party affiliation.  I don't think my characterization of half was too much of a stretch, while admitting it wasn't 100% accurate

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/18/fox-news-poll-trump-tops-clinton-both-seen-as-deeply-flawed-candidates.html

I wouldn't trust a FOX poll more than i would trust an NBC poll. 

Most polls have the undecided vote easily in the high teens to over 20%, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/of-course-trump-can-win/

Quote

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I’m not ready to accept yet that we’ll have a whole new map this time around. There will probably be some differences, yes. But my prior is that we’ll still have mostly the same swing states as last time, and I haven’t seen persuasive enough evidence yet to convince me otherwise. Here’s why: These polls are showing huge, enormous numbers of undecided voters. In that Monmouth poll of New Jersey, for instance, it’s Clinton 38 percent and Trump 34 percent, leaving 28 percent undecided, voting third party or saying they’ll sit out the general election. The Monmouth poll is a bit of an extreme case, but there are plenty of polls that are like, Clinton 43 percent, Trump 41 percent, undecided/other 16 percent, which is still a huge number.

micah: Is that unusual?

natesilver: It’s unusual, yes. By comparison, in 2012, we were seeing numbers more like Obama 47 percent, Romney 45 percent at a comparable point in the campaign.

But my point is that with all these undecided voters, it makes the state-by-state numbers a little flatter right now, if that makes sense.

I’d guess that if you looked at the makeup of the undecided voters in New Jersey, they’d look like they’ll probably wind up being Clinton supporters. And if you look at them in Arizona or Utah or one of the states where Trump has looked surprisingly vulnerable, they’d look like they’ll eventually be Trump supporters.

Here are the questions FOX'd asked. Not really exactly the title they showed in that article. Also, they asked the people, "If you don't know: Well, which way do you lean?". That is a crap question to just to tighten up the uncertainty. That way they can just clump them all under Trump or Hillary when they might actually be truly undecided. 

This poll is skewed towards the two minority parties anyways. Here is the national party affiliation, http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The nation is 25% Republican, 44% Independent, and 31% Democrat. The people who answered the poll identified as 40% democrat (+9%), 41% Republican (+17%), 16% Independent ( -28%). No wonder Hillary and Trump got in the mid 40's, that is who they asked the questions from. 

 

[Gunther]

39 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I wouldn't trust a FOX poll more than i would trust an NBC poll. 

Most polls have the undecided vote easily in the high teens to over 20%, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/of-course-trump-can-win/

Here are the questions FOX'd asked. Not really exactly the title they showed in that article. Also, they asked the people, "If you don't know: Well, which way do you lean?". That is a crap question to just to tighten up the uncertainty. That way they can just clump them all under Trump or Hillary when they might actually be truly undecided. 

This poll is skewed towards the two minority parties anyways. Here is the national party affiliation, http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The nation is 25% Republican, 44% Independent, and 31% Democrat. The people who answered the poll identified as 40% democrat (+9%), 41% Republican (+17%), 16% Independent ( -28%). No wonder Hillary and Trump got in the mid 40's, that is who they asked the questions from. 

 

The Independent vote went very strong for Romney in '12, and he still lost.  Given that, and everything you cited, along with other information I've read, I believe the country is right around 47% each side with only about 6% truly variable.  So again, half and half is a fair representation.  The Libertarian candidate could skew that this election but that would be an anomaly.

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, Gunther said:

The Independent vote went very strong for Romney in '12, and he still lost.  Given that, and everything you cited, along with other information I've read, I believe the country is right around 47% each side with only about 6% truly variable.  So again, half and half is a fair representation.  The Libertarian candidate could skew that this election but that would be an anomaly.

If you look at the Gallup poll. If you average since 2012, only 40% of voters lean Republican. Democrats have been averaging 47%. Undecided has been averaging 13% over the past 4 years. 

If you take it back 8 years then it gets closer. 41% Republican, 47% Democrats, 12% Undecided. 

This country has been shifting more moderate, but the Republicans have been losing more than the Democrats. 

If you include the "leaner" question. Then it's 40-41% Republican, 47% Democrat, 12-13% Undecided. 

 

[Ernest Jones]

10 hours ago, Gunther said:

You're a flame-thrower of the highest order

Nah, you're just highly flammable. 

The US doesn't live in a bubble or on their own private planet. To think that your politics, particularly foreign policy, are none of my business because I'm Canadian (and you're not they only one on here who has spouted such ignorant nonsense) is a ridiculous, centre of the universe, narcissistic POV that seems to be the Hallmark of many (not all, because some don't like to think in the deep end of the pool) Trump supporters. 

"Build a wall! Build a wall! Build a wall!"

Frankly, I can't understand how you're not at least a little bit embarrassed to be associated with such idiocy, but maybe to you it's not idiocy, maybe to you it's...home...

But feel free to ignore me, it'll be less stressful for you. A lot less amusing for me, but less stressful for you. Your health is far more important than my merriment. 

[newtogolf]

2 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

Nah, you're just highly flammable. 

The US doesn't live in a bubble or on their own private planet. To think that your politics, particularly foreign policy, are none of my business because I'm Canadian (and you're not they only one on here who has spouted such ignorant nonsense) is a ridiculous, centre of the universe, narcissistic POV that seems to be the Hallmark of many (not all, because some don't like to think in the deep end of the pool) Trump supporters. 

"Build a wall! Build a wall! Build a wall!"

Frankly, I can't understand how you're not at least a little bit embarrassed to be associated with such idiocy, but maybe to you it's not idiocy, maybe to you it's...home...

But feel free to ignore me, it'll be less stressful for you. A lot less amusing for me, but less stressful for you. Your health is far more important than my merriment. 

The wall is a flawed solution but it is symbolic of the illegal immigration problem and our need to get better control of our borders.  We have an immigration policy, it should be followed, those who do not are criminals.  

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

Frankly, I can't understand how you're not at least a little bit embarrassed to be associated with such idiocy, but maybe to you it's not idiocy, maybe to you it's...home...

I can empathize with those people. There is going to be some irrational emotional dislike towards a certain ethnicity based on the fact that people lost their jobs. Its sad that people rather just generalize and be prejudicial. 

That isn't me saying a wall is a good idea. I can at least understand where they are coming from on that regard.

16 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The wall is a flawed solution but it is symbolic of the illegal immigration problem and our need to get better control of our borders.  We have an immigration policy, it should be followed, those who do not are criminals.  

I agree there are much better ways to deal with immigration than building a wall. Humans have been believing walls will protect them for centuries. Its just a false sense of security. 

 

[Braivo]

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/04/14/why-the-wall-will-work/

Quote

 

While elites on both sides of the border have resorted to feigned mockery regarding Trump’s proposal, the Mexican people would hardly find it unusual. After all, virtually every family in Mexico builds a wall around their home as soon as they can afford one. Those walls, often topped with glass, barbed wire, or both, are as necessary to their daily lives, health, and safety as indoor plumbing.

Even liberals understand the necessity of walls. Five years ago, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat and second-generation Mexican-American, demanded an exception to zoning laws so he could build a six-foot high wall around his official residence. And Hillary Clinton’s family home in Chappaqua, New York, is surrounded by a high security fence complete with a guardhouse.

When it comes to walls, American liberals are not alone. Even European socialists have come to their senses. The European Union has now reversed its open-borders policy and has agreed to spend billions bribing Turkey to take back some of the thousands of “refugees” that it has poured into Europe over the past two years. Meanwhile, member countries build fences and walls with layers of razor-wire protected by armed guards to prevent another illegal inundation.

 

Good fences make good neighbors. 

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Braivo said:

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/04/14/why-the-wall-will-work/

For the title stating why "the wall will work", it didn't really specify how it will. The primary issue I want to know is, will the wall deter illegal immigrants from entering this country? The article didn't say anything regarding that. 

I am not putting my blind faith that it will. People have been building ways to keep other people off their property for centuries. There isn't really a good track record with it being successful.