Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive


Tied
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm going to error on the side of Donald Trump and Muhammed Ali actually knowing each other and hanging out at different public events together and were at the very least acquaintances if not having friendly professional relationship. They're celebrities and that's what celebrities do. And whatever disagreements the two might have had (or might not have had) in life can stay between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the full Obama quote from the 2015 speech.  

 

Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country.  We have to remember that. 

 

Here is a list of Muslim Athletes.  Other than the boxers (Ali, Tyson) and the basketball players, most of these people are not well known.  It's also worth pointing out that many of these guys are part of the "Nation of Islam", an organization that many mainstream Muslims would not really accept as Islam.  It's sort of comparable to how mainstream Christians view Mormonism.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats must still not be taking Trump seriously at this point.  That is the only explanation I can think of for their continued intraspecific bickering at this late date.

 

If Trump were to say fuck it and retire to the Bahamas right now he could probably win the Republican party every subsequent election.  The Democrats would have no common enemy to encourage them to band together, and the party would simply implode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So according the latest rumor mill, Trump is considering Newt Gingrich as a possible VP pick.  Granted, I am not a Trump supporter, but I can't imagine that many of the people that are attracted to his campaign would be very excited about Newt.  

 

I've actually read pieces by a few Republicans who said they would warm up the Trump campaign if he picked Gingrich.  The way they saw it, Trump is a know-nothing populist rabble-rouser who is good at manipulating crowds and cameras.  Other than the despair he arouses in the hearts of the perpetually offended, they didn't like too much about him.  But Gingrich, to them, embodies the very best parts of the contemporary Republican party.  He's deeply interested in defense and technology, and ensuring that the US remains the world leader in these areas.  Also, he doesn't just say he cares; to a degree remarkable for a career politician he actually understands the stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Newt Gingrich being VP results in a sweet moonbase I might actually consider voting for Trump. Congratulations on nominating the shittiest candidate, dems.

 

Also, the problem with not letting people on the watchlist buy guns is that there's not sort of trial or anything that gets you on the watchlist, so it would probably violate the 14th amendment (depriving people of their constitutional rights without due process).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Newt Gingrich being VP results in a sweet moonbase I might actually consider voting for Trump. Congratulations on nominating the shittiest candidate, dems.

 

Also, the problem with not letting people on the watchlist buy guns is that there's not sort of trial or anything that gets you on the watchlist, so it would probably violate the 14th amendment (depriving people of their constitutional rights without due process).

 

Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list (I mean I wouldn't get in a car with Ted Kennedy much less a plane) for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the current election from the outside, as someone who is interested but absolutely not participating nor had any stake in it to begin with, it has become incredibly obvious to me that most of the discourse surrounding the candidates has to do with labeling.

Instead of focusing on the candidates' actions, people label them one thing or another. This allows them to differentiate or equivocate candidates regardless of who they are or what they've done.

For example,

Actions:

Trump

  • Hosted a reality TV show.
  • Started several high profile business ventures that appeared to sacrifice their substance to strengthen his own personal brand.
  • Routinely lies/stretches the truth if it gets him ahead.
  • Has never been a politician before.

Hillary

  • Covered up her husband's affairs
  • Routinely abused her staff verbally
  • Started or fomented something like 3 civil wars
  • Exhibits an incredibly obvious addiction to power
  • Lifelong politician

 

Now let's label them:

Trump

  • Uber rich corrupt New York liberal

Hillary

  • Uber rich corrupt New York liberal

Now, I can't hide my complete contempt for Hillary Clinton in writing this, but hopefully I've not exactly endorsed Trump, either. My point isn't that either candidate is good and the other is bad, it's that they are two very different people, but by labeling them you can equivocate them in people's minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their doc on trying to undermine the 2016 GOP candidates was neat. Notably, it included nothing about Donald Trump. Maybe he took the DP by surprise?

 

Or Ted Cruz for that matter which is equally important imo since he would've been the nominee if Trump didn't enter the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how the meme cluelessly uses the Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder line which has been a catchphrase of one Michael Savage now for nearly two decades.

Whoever made it probably isn't as hip to American politics as they think they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...