Collimatrix Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 I've just read the commentary and it all centers around Nazi cakes. Crazy anti-virus firewall guy seems decent, but being a murder suspect really makes him the perfect libertarian candidate. Crazy anti-virus firewall guy shouldn't be president, he should be a saint: Priory_of_Sion, Scolopax, T___A and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Fight Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Right, and you're also seeing that Anti-Trump Republicans (ATRs) are predicting a massive loss for Trump in the general, based on... "The media will turn on him." Um, what planet are they living on? The media has BEEN against Trump, and he's thrived on it. "But they have so many facts and evidence and stuff against him!" So? Since when has any of that mattered in an election? Since when has Trump cared that you could cite him saying something? He always just says "I never said that" and moves on. He's lying, but again, who cares? Your "low information voters" (i.e. normal people) don't. I agree with Scott Adams on this (though not a whole lot else): a Trump v. Hillary election results in a landslide Trump victory. The media doesn't support Trump on an ideological level, but they've been the biggest help to him. Think of it like the Kardashians. How many shows about no-name families or rich people have there been? Now, how many people screech every day about the Kardashians having a show is contributing to the downfall of society? How many people who don't even watch this lame cable show about another pointless rich family have a very strong opinion and share and like every news story or social media report (positive or negative). Overall, everyone has a negative view of this family, yet they only get more famous and more rich. It's because everyone's always talking about them, and since they're not running a charity group or something like that, all they need is to put their name on something to get more money. Same goes for Bieber. I actually listen to my local pop station because they play good stuff like MGMT, The Black Keys, and Arctic Monkeys. They play all other kinds of pop, and I still have not heard them play a single Justin Bieber song. Yet everyone hates this kid's guts and can't shut up about him and his music. He'd have gone the way of the Jonas Brothers or any other manufactured teen idol if the world just decided to stop talking about him. Likewise, Trump could have been relegated to being another no-name. While most of his popularity comes from party missteps since the late '90s, Trump is only a big deal because he knows how to use media, both "official" and social. As a businessman, he's been shown to be competent at best, and incompetent and inscrpulous at worst. What he does do well is sell his name. Like the schoolyard bully who knows how to press buttons, he gets people more and more riled up. This gets media attention who want in on that sweet story, and that gets more people riled up. You now have a movement where even media outlets trying to "take him down" are only feeding the beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SergeantMatt Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 I wouldn't be so confident about Trump's chances against Hillary. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/?tid=sm_fb If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271. Game over. The Republican map — whether with Trump, Cruz or the ideal Republican nominee (Paul Ryan?) as the standard-bearer — is decidedly less friendly. There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP presidential nominee in each of the last six elections. But they only total 102 electorate votes. That means the eventual nominee has to find, at least, 168 more electoral votes to get to 270. Which is a hell of a lot harder than finding 28 electoral votes. Belesarius 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Fight Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Trump running as a third party is the biggest question I have to see answered before I make any predictions about November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Trump doesn't need to unless something weird happens. I guess Mitt Romney is getting asked to run third party though. ... ... Good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 I feel somewhat dirty for posting a link to a FOX News opinion piece, but hey... Why not. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/03/any-republican-who-thinks-its-better-to-elect-trump-than-hillary-needs-their-head-examined.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 This is one of the worst analyses of Donald Trump I've ever seen: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 I'm not saying things like that don't happen, I'm wondering why - if that's why Trump got nominated and not because he just appeals to right-wing voters - do people put up with that in the GOP? You'd think they'd have more luck registering D and getting someone like Webb nominated. Of course, Larry also blames "ignorant low information voters", as if there's any other kind that matters. Yes, dude, that's what democracy means. I thought 'low information' was simply everyone's way of saying 'voted for somebody I don't like'. It's similar to the idea that the team I don't like is simply buying their constituents off by promising things they want. Meanwhile; voting for someone who is not promising things that you want is self-hating insanity, and if the team I don't like shows any signs of doing that I'm going to jump on their voters for voting against their self interests. ShamefurDispray and Sturgeon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 I thought 'low information' was simply everyone's way of saying 'voted for somebody I don't like'. It's similar to the idea that the team I don't like is simply buying their constituents off by promising things they want. Meanwhile; voting for someone who is not promising things that you want is self-hating insanity, and if the team I don't like shows any signs of doing that I'm going to jump on their voters for voting against their self interests. The secret part of this, though, is that everyone's a low information voter, because hardly anyone actually has experience governing. That includes me, BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 The secret part of this, though, is that everyone's a low information voter, because hardly anyone actually has experience governing. That includes me, BTW. The other secret being that the guy promising you bread is no more or less likely to deliver than the guy promising you an alteration to the marginal tax rate in order to fund an expanded school program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Not that it matters but for awhile the top trending topic on Tweeter was #DropOutHillary http://www.salon.com/2016/05/04/drop_out_hillary_say_left_wing_twitter_users_clinton_cant_buy_this_election/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApplesauceBandit Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 gif I'm linking the actual video that's from, since it's about 50 times better than the gif that showed up on imgur Scolopax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Just a quick note which I might expound upon later. It is looking to me like the #NEVERTRUMP movement is dying not two days what with Governor Nikki Haley saying she'll support Trump and other pundits and politicians coming around. Honestly, the majority of the Never Trump folks are actually Democrats, Progressives and Libertarians who won't ever vote for Trump - gee, no kidding - and who are attempting to capitalize on this. Just got through "debating" some Never Trump guy on FB who it turns out is a Bernie Sanders guy. Shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 I'm linking the actual video that's from, since it's about 50 times better than the gif that showed up on imgur The bit where the waitress looks down and seems impressed is what makes it comedy gold, considering what happened in that one debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 I'm not going to comment in this thread much other than to say that the nomination of Trump by one of our two major political parties is...depressing. The last time a party nominated someone with no political experience, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower. There is a difference between Eisenhower and Trump. Meanwhile, lets see what Republican Foreign Policy experts have to say about Trump: We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly: His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence. His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world. His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable. His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims. Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor. Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II. His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy. He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation. His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs. Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 This is one of the worst analyses of Donald Trump I've ever seen: Never trust a man in a pink button up shirt (in reference to the host of the video). I don't like Trump, but I also hate all the various idiots that think that because they can shoot a video about politics and post it to youtube that we should take them seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApplesauceBandit Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Is it really racketeering when, at least from my understanding, those countries being told to spend more are in fact not spending at the levels promised? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that to me stood out as intentionally misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 I'm not going to comment in this thread much other than to say that the nomination of Trump by one of our two major political parties is...depressing. The last time a party nominated someone with no political experience, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower. There is a difference between Eisenhower and Trump. Meanwhile, lets see what Republican Foreign Policy experts have to say about Trump: What is the track record of those Republican foreign policy "experts"? I'm literally watching a concert right now put on by Vladimir Putin and the Russkies in the World Heritage Site of Palmyra in Syria. This is a couple days after some C rate comedian chest thumped and called our President "My Nigga". While at the same time there are protests occurring in Bagdad and a whole list of other events. The fact that a reality TV star, a sometimes successful philandering real estate developer and 1980s stereotype who also performed as a WWF wrestler is literally the only candidate in both political parties who has anything close to a rational foreign policy is confounding to me. It is dumbfounding. Trump is no Ike. America doesn't deserve an Eisenhower right now. T___A 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 I think this got linked previously but here is the text of Trump's foreign policy speech that somebody else wrote most of. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-foreign-policy-speech Trump is... well... he's Donald Trump. We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes. But we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests. Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism. I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia – from a position of strength – is possible. Common sense says this cycle of hostility must end. Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can’t make a good deal for America, then we will quickly walk from the table. ... That is why I will also look for talented experts with new approaches, and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 The sadness one feels when most of my real life friends are frantically trying to resurrect the Ted Cruz campaign and somehow believe that if they still vote for and support Cruz he'll magic up enough votes to stop Trump from becoming the nominee. Politically, they're like the last Japanese soldiers to surrender in World War 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 I'm not going to comment in this thread much other than to say that the nomination of Trump by one of our two major political parties is...depressing. The last time a party nominated someone with no political experience, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower. There is a difference between Eisenhower and Trump. Meanwhile, lets see what Republican Foreign Policy experts have to say about Trump: I am gonna sound like such a fucking Trumpeteer by asking this, but these wouldn't happen to be the foreign policy "experts" who've been running US foreign policy for the past 25 years, would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Trump is no Ike. America doesn't deserve an Eisenhower right now. Fuck, America doesn't deserve Vladimir Putin right now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 I am gonna sound like such a fucking Trumpeteer by asking this, but these wouldn't happen to be the foreign policy "experts" who've been running US foreign policy for the past 25 years, would they? Certainly quite a few of the names on that list were responsible for the (in my opinion) rather poor policies of the Bush administration. As Republicans, I doubt they had much influence over the past 8 years of the Obama presidency or of the 8 years of Clinton. So over the last 25 years, I would guess they only had a good deal of influence over the period 2001-2009. If you read the Trump speech carefully, you will notice that he carefully limits his examples of US foreign policy failures to things that happened under Clinton and Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 When Bele posts a Glen Beck video, the apocalypse approaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts