Presidential Race 2016

[Gunther]

12 minutes ago, bplewis24 said:

Regarding a third party, it's just not going to happen anytime soon, unless one of the traditional parties has some sort of a split.  There is simply too much money in politics to allow for a third party to gain traction in mainstream politics.  And even if they could at the presidential level, the problem is that statehouses are still largely dominated by the two parties, and the funding in those races tends to come from the party establishment.  The parties are institutions at this point.

 

 

Well, that and the fact that one of the Libertarian candidates at their convention performed a strip tease, and doesn't suffer from sexual dysphoria, i.e., was a fat, hairy, white guy.    

While much of their platform is pretty sound, they are a bunch of frickin nut jobs.

[bplewis24]

34 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Well, that and the fact that one of the Libertarian candidates at their convention performed a strip tease, and doesn't suffer from sexual dysphoria, i.e., was a fat, hairy, white guy.    

While much of their platform is pretty sound, they are a bunch of frickin nut jobs.

LOL, I was watching that video last night.  At least, while some of the audience was going along with it, one person got up to the mic to say that as a libertarian he found that displays like that just reinforce the perception that his party is a joke.

[Gunther]

18 minutes ago, bplewis24 said:

LOL, I was watching that video last night.  At least, while some of the audience was going along with it, one person got up to the mic to say that as a libertarian he found that displays like that just reinforce the perception that his party is a joke.

He would be right.  I actually didn't see that but definitely heard the laughter and cheering, which reinforced the perception in my mind that they're a bunch of lunatics.

[drmevo]

1 hour ago, bplewis24 said:

The stuff with the judge is providing a counterpoint to many of the arguments people are making in defense of Trump lately.  

For the life of me I can't understand how anyone is surprised by his comments about the judge. He's been saying similarly stupid and offensive stuff the whole election cycle, and he's always been inarticulate and unable to explain himself.  Is this just the straw that broke the camel's back?  

[Chilli Dipper]

16 minutes ago, drmevo said:

For the life of me I can't understand how anyone is surprised by his comments about the judge. He's been saying similarly stupid and offensive stuff the whole election cycle, and he's always been inarticulate and unable to explain himself.  Is this just the straw that broke the camel's back?  

The party had no game plan to respond to Trump's rhetoric during the primaries. This is the first time Republican officials have had to listen to his invective and say to themselves, "this is our guy." It's real now.

[newtogolf]

11 minutes ago, drmevo said:

For the life of me I can't understand how anyone is surprised by his comments about the judge. He's been saying similarly stupid and offensive stuff the whole election cycle, and he's always been inarticulate and unable to explain himself.  Is this just the straw that broke the camel's back?  

Trump shows a severe lack of preparedness which I blame on him and his staff.  You can't go into an interview with Face The Nation and not know exactly what you're going to say.  In his businesses he may have known enough about the business go in and talk off the top of his head, but when you're in public or doing interviews with cameras and people watching you have to be 100% on point.  

The statement he made today to clarify his stupid remarks on Face the Nation was damage control, it doesn't excuse him for making the comments and it will take some time before the news outlets stop talking about it.   I agree with his statement today, there is always potential for bias from a judge that gets appointed by the other party but that doesn't have anything to do with race, religion or sex.  

His staff better sit him down and tell him pointedly that he can't do anymore interviews without being fully prepared and rehearse his responses to issues he is likely to get asked about.   Politicians should have focus groups and perform interviews in front of different demographics to see how his responses are being interpreted.  He made it to the finals, now it's time to get prepared and act like a real candidate.  

The above aside, it won't stop me voting for him over Hillary, I'm 100% entrenched in the "Never Hillary" camp.  

[Ernest Jones]

35 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Trump shows a severe lack of preparedness which I blame on him and his staff.  You can't go into an interview with Face The Nation and not know exactly what you're going to say.  In his businesses he may have known enough about the business go in and talk off the top of his head, but when you're in public or doing interviews with cameras and people watching you have to be 100% on point.  

The statement he made today to clarify his stupid remarks on Face the Nation was damage control, it doesn't excuse him for making the comments and it will take some time before the news outlets stop talking about it.   I agree with his statement today, there is always potential for bias from a judge that gets appointed by the other party but that doesn't have anything to do with race, religion or sex.  

His staff better sit him down and tell him pointedly that he can't do anymore interviews without being fully prepared and rehearse his responses to issues he is likely to get asked about.   Politicians should have focus groups and perform interviews in front of different demographics to see how his responses are being interpreted.  He made it to the finals, now it's time to get prepared and act like a real candidate.  

The above aside, it won't stop me voting for him over Hillary, I'm 100% entrenched in the "Never Hillary" camp.  

That's called "cutting your nose off to spite your face."

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

Well, that and the fact that one of the Libertarian candidates at their convention performed a strip tease, and doesn't suffer from sexual dysphoria, i.e., was a fat, hairy, white guy.    

While much of their platform is pretty sound, they are a bunch of frickin nut jobs.

So you have one guy who acted on a dare and you are going to label the entire party as crazy. Way to stereotype. 
No, they are not nut jobs. They are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They want very little intrusion from the federal government. They are basically where the GOP should be at but are not. The GOP is losing the social agenda and they are just acting as obstructionists. 

51 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The statement he made today to clarify his stupid remarks on Face the Nation was damage control, it doesn't excuse him for making the comments and it will take some time before the news outlets stop talking about it.   I agree with his statement today, there is always potential for bias from a judge that gets appointed by the other party but that doesn't have anything to do with race, religion or sex.  

The problem is by the time they stop talking about it he says something else. 

51 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

His staff better sit him down and tell him pointedly that he can't do anymore interviews without being fully prepared and rehearse his responses to issues he is likely to get asked about.   Politicians should have focus groups and perform interviews in front of different demographics to see how his responses are being interpreted.  He made it to the finals, now it's time to get prepared and act like a real candidate.  

Pretty much. 

2 hours ago, bplewis24 said:

The stuff with the judge is providing a counterpoint to many of the arguments people are making in defense of Trump lately.  Regarding a third party, it's just not going to happen anytime soon, unless one of the traditional parties has some sort of a split.  There is simply too much money in politics to allow for a third party to gain traction in mainstream politics.  And even if they could at the presidential level, the problem is that statehouses are still largely dominated by the two parties, and the funding in those races tends to come from the party establishment.  The parties are institutions at this point.

I find it impressive that they are getting 6-14% in polls with out the establishment backing or media attention like the GOP or Democrats get. I would say if Congress keeps acting up it will force more people to look at a third option. 

---

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/donald-trump-mexican-judge-trump-university-racist/index.html?eref=rss_latest

"I don't care if the judge is Mexican or not," Trump told O'Reilly. "All I want him to do is give me a fair shake."Which means he wants the judge to side with him. As of right now Trump thinks he's right on everything and if you side against him you are being unfair to him. 

[Chilli Dipper]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

His staff better sit him down and tell him pointedly that he can't do anymore interviews without being fully prepared and rehearse his responses to issues he is likely to get asked about.   Politicians should have focus groups and perform interviews in front of different demographics to see how his responses are being interpreted.  He made it to the finals, now it's time to get prepared and act like a real candidate. 

When his top staffers sent out a damage control e-mail to campaign surrogates yesterday, Trump went on conference call and told them to ignore everything the e-mail said.

Quote

"Are there any other stupid letters that were sent to you folks?" Trump said. "That's one of the reasons I want to have this call, because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren't so smart."

Considering that's how Trump reacts to the people who are ostensibly running his campaign trying their best to diffuse a controversy, exactly who in his inner circle is he going to listen to, besides the one who tells him exactly what he wants to hear?

Edited June 8, 2016 by Chilli Dipper
Fixed link

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

That's called "cutting your nose off to spite your face."

No way, I don't know what you guys hear in Canada, (I'm guess you're all pretty liberal there) but there's no way anyone that cares about integrity votes for Hillary.  

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

No way, I don't know what you guys hear in Canada, (I'm guess you're all pretty liberal there) but there's no way anyone that cares about integrity votes for Hillary.  

I think you mean, "there's no way anyone that cares about integrity votes for any candidate" 

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I think you mean, "there's no way anyone that cares about integrity votes for any candidate" 

True, but in terms of integrity, I'll say Trump has a slight edge.  I don't consider some of his business dealings to be as dirty as Hillary's political scandals.  Trump is fighting civil suits, Hillary is under multiple investigations by the FBI.  

[Golfingdad]

29 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

No way, I don't know what you guys hear in Canada, (I'm guess you're all pretty liberal there) but there's no way anyone that cares about integrity votes for Hillary.  

This is absolutely wrong.  Even if I stipulated that Hillary had no integrity, this is still 100% wrong.  And it's just like somebody who isn't racist or sexist can bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump.  We weigh all of the factors and make our best judgment based on those.   Whoever we choose has more pros than cons relative to the other candidates.  By no means does it mean that they still don't have a lot of cons.  There are no absolutes.

[newtogolf]

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This is absolutely wrong.  Even if I stipulated that Hillary had no integrity, this is still 100% wrong.  And it's just like somebody who isn't racist or sexist can bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump.  We weigh all of the factors and make our best judgment based on those.   Whoever we choose has more pros than cons relative to the other candidates.  By no means does it mean that they still don't have a lot of cons.  There are no absolutes.

I may have pulled a Trump and didn't word my position properly .  I meant if integrity is your primary concern you're not likely going to vote for Hillary if you are aware of all the scandals and investigations her and Bill have been involved in.  

I didn't mean to suggest there weren't other reasons one might vote for Hillary but I don't consider integrity to be an area that she stands above Trump on.  

[baller7345]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I may have pulled a Trump and didn't word my position properly .  I meant if integrity is your primary concern you're not likely going to vote for Hillary if you are aware of all the scandals and investigations her and Bill have been involved in.  

If integrity is your primary concern then honestly we are screwed in this election.  Neither of the the candidates that it appears we have to choose from are looking to morally outstanding or truthful.  At this point it's a decision between political corruption or someone who really seems to be trying to position himself as a bigot and seems allergic to the truth in terms of is campaign rhetoric (last I checked he clocked in at 91% false on politifact).  It amazes me that both parties seem to be picking two of the most polarizing, least liked individuals they could find. At least they both have a better approval rating than congress...

It's really kind of depressing.

[Elmer]

13 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Trump shows a severe lack of preparedness which I blame on him and his staff.  You can't go into an interview with Face The Nation and not know exactly what you're going to say.  In his businesses he may have known enough about the business go in and talk off the top of his head, but when you're in public or doing interviews with cameras and people watching you have to be 100% on point.  

The statement he made today to clarify his stupid remarks on Face the Nation was damage control, it doesn't excuse him for making the comments and it will take some time before the news outlets stop talking about it.   I agree with his statement today, there is always potential for bias from a judge that gets appointed by the other party but that doesn't have anything to do with race, religion or sex.  

His staff better sit him down and tell him pointedly that he can't do anymore interviews without being fully prepared and rehearse his responses to issues he is likely to get asked about.   Politicians should have focus groups and perform interviews in front of different demographics to see how his responses are being interpreted.  He made it to the finals, now it's time to get prepared and act like a real candidate.  

The above aside, it won't stop me voting for him over Hillary, I'm 100% entrenched in the "Never Hillary" camp.  

9 hours ago, newtogolf said:

 

No way, I don't know what you guys hear in Canada, (I'm guess you're all pretty liberal there) but there's no way anyone that cares about integrity votes for Hillary.  

in·teg·ri·ty

/inˈteɡrədē/

the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

If Trump cannot prepare for a face the nation interview, if he can not or will not listen to a staff, how does his supporters think he will be prepared in the war room? How will he listen to his cabinet or the joint chiefs? 
His actions and behavior are telling, they will not change when his finger in the on the button!

[Braivo]

15 hours ago, bplewis24 said:

It may be real and tangible, but I think you're also presenting it in a vacuum, without context.  Without even knowing the statistics, I would fully accept your numbers in terms of how many men were affected by the downturn.  However, that type of figure doesn't account for how much better they may have already been doing compared to women in the workplace before the downturn.  Or that there might be more men in the workplace who have higher salaries.  So your assertion that it "doesn't fit the narrative" might be true, but it may not fit the narrative for a valid reason.  I mean, if your narrative is that men have it harder than women (in either some broad sense or some specific sense in the workplace), then I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

I do not agree with either of these bolded statements. Men and women have different struggles, neither can be compared to the other. Also, comparing men to women in the workplace, including wage equality, is difficult and the disparity doesn't exist IMO. If you factor in hours worked most of the disparity vanishes anyway. 

12 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

When his top staffers sent out a damage control e-mail to campaign surrogates yesterday, Trump went on conference call and told them to ignore everything the e-mail said.

Considering that's how Trump reacts to the people who are ostensibly running his campaign trying their best to diffuse a controversy, exactly who in his inner circle is he going to listen to, besides the one who tells him exactly what he wants to hear?

Like I said before, Trump does not answer to the GOP. They continue to try to use their old tactics of being apologetic and he wants none of it. 

[xcott]

Gary Johnson.