2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Just as Hillary will prove my point when it comes to her being a warmonger.

And Trump doing the same by "bombing the sh*t out of them" will prove...?

InTheTrees

Polls today move Georgia from Red to toss up. Its been many years since Georgia voted democrat but trump could cause the shift.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/02/more-polls-more-deadlock-between-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-in-georgia/

Suryavarman

Billy86 wrote: »

And Trump doing the same by "bombing the sh*t out of them" will prove...?

Hillary supporting popular revolutions to overthrow oppressive dictators in the past is so much worse than Trump wanting to commit war crimes when he becomes president. How could you not see that?

Suryavarman

InTheTrees wrote: »

Polls today move Georgia from Red to toss up. Its been many years since Georgia voted democrat but trump could cause the shift.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/02/more-polls-more-deadlock-between-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-in-georgia/

If the Republican Party continues to go in Trump's direction then Arizona and Georgia are going to become swing states. We could end up with a weird scenario for the next while that the Republican party could continue dominating at the state level but find it impossible to win presidential elections.

Christy42

Suryavarman wrote: »

If the Republican Party continues to go in Trump's direction then Arizona and Georgia are going to become swing states. We could end up with a weird scenario for the next while that the Republican party could continue dominating at the state level but find it impossible to win presidential elections.

Down ballot this November will be a big indicator for the future. Both for candidates in the style of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. If they don't see much success (especially in states that suited them in the primaries) then both will be a flash in the pan in terms of their ideas.

I worry for that the energy the Bernie supporters brought to the race could go to nothing. I think Sanders brought up some good points but worry about how engaged his supporters are with politics in general. Hopefully this is a terrible and incorrect generalisation of them.

InTheTrees

Christy42 wrote: »

Down ballot will be a big thing for the future. .

This November too. Expect a large loss of support for republicans across the board.

Christy42

InTheTrees wrote: »

This November too. Expect a large loss of support for republicans across the board.

Sorry - badly worded my post. I meant that down ballot this November will give a good indication of what we can see from both parties going into the future. I doubt either Bernie or Trump will stand again so if surrogates with similar policies can't get elected then it signals the relevant movement will gain much traction going forward.

On the other hand a big win for people with Bernie like policies would show that they will be around for a while and will make up a decent portion of what the Democrat party will be doing in future as well as serving as a guard on a probably President Clinton and show support for someone similar to Bernie next time around (this is what I feel the Bernie or Bust people should be doing). Similarly for Trump and the Republicans.

I edited my post above to make it clearer.

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote:

Polls today move Georgia from Red to toss up. Its been many years since Georgia voted democrat but trump could cause the shift.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08...on-in-georgia/

Would be the first time since 1992 and second since since 1980. It's kind of ironic in a sense if they do go for the Democrats (personally I doubt it) given that they voted democrat for almost a straight century, but were swayed by the southern strategy and 'silent majority'.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Would be the first time since 1992 and second since since 1980. It's kind of ironic in a sense if they do go for the Democrats (personally I doubt it) given that they voted democrat for almost a straight century, but were swayed by the southern strategy and 'silent majority'.

This a really very quick and dirty video which can help give some context to the 'other side' of that sway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

Peist2007

Suryavarman wrote: »

What does it tell me when a news organisation decides to cover a major party nominee for the presidency asking a foreign head of state to interfere in the US presidential election?

He didnt ask. It was clearly tongue in cheek given Hillary and the DNC were already shouting that Putin was behind it to deflect. The whole thing was an exercise in deflection. Good to see they duped you. Any thoughts on the DNC colluding with the media to freeze out Bernie Sanders?

Peist2007

marienbad wrote: »

should they have ignored Trump/Putin ?

They could have ignored Putin given he nor Russia didnt hack them. But then how would they have got all us sheep to stop focussing on the exposed corruption and talking about the boogy man instead?

Peist2007

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Seemed odd alright....

The dark heart of the democratic party was laid bare for all to see but the media worked very hard to make it a story about Vladi pulling strings.

Eaxactly. And now it appears that the leak came from within. Anyone hear CNN or Sky talking about the murder of Seth Rich a few weeks ago? Didnt think so. Assange might make it impossible for them to censor that story in the coming weeks.

Peist2007

Christy42 wrote: »

If that is the dark heart I am pretty happy. They said no homo and some members of the dnc were not as unbiased as they should have been.

I expected worse. You are grasping at straws to try and find something to make Hillary a scarier option than Trump and you will need a lot more to come close.

The DNC is supposed to be impartial you know in their primary process. You happy that they pick a candidate and then have the media push only that candidate thereby rigging the process? Fair enough. If Bernie Sanders had not gained such a swell of young people (his "movement") then it is likely we would never have heard a peep from him at all. A completely rigged unfair primary. But, yeah, fine with me.

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

See, here it is again. What is it that is so unfair about the media literally repeating what Trump says? Not sure of your own leanings, but it really does seem to annoy his own supporters quite a lot, and more and more so lately as his comments have become increasingly unhinged.

You'd almost swear they were trying to avoid reality.

Trump made one of his typical poorly timed gaffes. It was tongue in cheek clearly. The fact you seem to want to view that as collusion with the Russians show that you seem to want to avoid reality. When the leak is exposed as coming from within the DNC in the coming weeks, will you adjust your position? Doubt it.

Peist2007

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Is there no demographic Trump is prepared to alienate

Mexicans
Women
Black people
War veterans
Families of veterans
Dems
Media
Anybody that criticises him

And now BABIES....... You cannot make this stuff up


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-kicks-out-baby-rally-226566

Almost as if he is trying not to win, isnt it.

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

And Trump doing the same by "bombing the sh*t out of them" will prove...?

Any links to bombings Trump has been involved in? I can show you some bombing that Hillary has her mits all over. Avoiding reality you say?

Suryavarman

Christy42 wrote: »

Sorry - badly worded my post. I meant that down ballot this November will give a good indication of what we can see from both parties going into the future. I doubt either Bernie or Trump will stand again so if surrogates with similar policies can't get elected then it signals the relevant movement will gain much traction going forward.

On the other hand a big win for people with Bernie like policies would show that they will be around for a while and will make up a decent portion of what the Democrat party will be doing in future as well as serving as a guard on a probably President Clinton and show support for someone similar to Bernie next time around (this is what I feel the Bernie or Bust people should be doing). Similarly for Trump and the Republicans.

I edited my post above to make it clearer.

Bernie's supporters are mainly people that are politically inexperienced or would usually have nothing to do with the Democratic Party. I can't imagine them winning any more than a couple of House seats at best.

Peist2007 wrote: »

He didnt ask. It was clearly tongue in cheek given Hillary and the DNC were already shouting that Putin was behind it to deflect. The whole thing was an exercise in deflection. Good to see they duped you. Any thoughts on the DNC colluding with the media to freeze out Bernie Sanders?

You're overstating what the DNC did. Regardless, I don't have any problem whatsoever with what they did. Bernie has learned a valuable lesson: you shouldn't spend large amounts of time attacking the party and expect them to treat you as well as any other candidate.

Peist2007

Suryavarman wrote: »

You're overstating what the DNC did. Regardless, I don't have any problem whatsoever with what they did. Bernie has learned a valuable lesson: you shouldn't spend large amounts of time attacking the party and expect them to treat you as well as any other candidate.

I don't think i am overstating it at all. Hillary was pushed forward as a chosen candidate by the overseeing body who were supposed to be impartial. It is clear corruption and should not be tolerated. As for the final comment re Bernie learning a lesson - well i think you've exposed yourself there a little. Will find it difficult to take anything further you say as serious.

oscarBravo

Peist2007 wrote: »

Any links to bombings Trump has been involved in? I can show you some bombing that Hillary has her mits all over. Avoiding reality you say?

Well, yes. "I'm supporting a candidate who has promised to carry out bombings, because he hasn't ever been in a position to carry them out before."

As always, you've clearly demonstrated that in order to be a Trump supporter, you have to suspend logic first.

Peist2007

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, yes. "I'm supporting a candidate who has promised to carry out bombings, because he hasn't ever been in a position to carry them out before."

As always, you've clearly demonstrated that in order to be a Trump supporter, you have to suspend logic first.

Nope. Try again. I am no Trump supporter. The man is a complete fool.

I just find it funny to see pro-Hillary heads talk about how Trump will definitely bomb the crap out of places when there is zero evidence he will do so. He offered his VP picks control over foreign and domestic policy ffs. Trump will enjoy the presidency as the narcissist that he is. Hillary, however, has supported every war the Americans have entered in the past 20 years. "We came, we saw, he died". How is Libya looking now?

And i am the one not employing logic? You are a fool who believes what the television tells him to believe.

Suryavarman

Peist2007 wrote: »

I don't think i am overstating it at all. Hillary was pushed forward as a chosen candidate by the overseeing body who were supposed to be impartial. It is clear corruption and should not be tolerated. As for the final comment re Bernie learning a lesson - well i think you've exposed yourself there a little. Will find it difficult to take anything further you say as serious.

The DNC is supposed to do what is best for the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders attacking the party and actively harming the nominee's chances of winning the election is not good for the party. Does it really matter that they expressed a dislike for a candidate after all rational people realised the race was over? No it doesn't.

Do you think political candidates should be allowed to join a party because it's politically convenient and then attack a political party and still be treated fairly by the people that dedicate their lives to that party? Give me a break.

Suryavarman

Peist2007 wrote: »

Nope. Try again. I am no Trump supporter. The man is a complete fool.

I just find it funny to see pro-Hillary heads talk about how Trump will definitely bomb the crap out of places when there is zero evidence he will do so. He offered his VP picks control over foreign and domestic policy ffs. Trump will enjoy the presidency as the narcissist that he is. Hillary, however, has supported every war the Americans have entered in the past 20 years. "We came, we saw, he died". How is Libya looking now?

And i am the one not employing logic? You are a fool who believes what the television tells him to believe.

Apart from him expressly saying that he would do that.

Peist2007

Suryavarman wrote: »

The DNC is supposed to do what is best for the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders attacking the party and actively harming the nominee's chances of winning the election is not good for the party. Does it really matter that they expressed a dislike for a candidate after all rational people realised the race was over? No it doesn't.

Do you think political candidates should be allowed to join a party because it's politically convenient and then attack a political party and still be treated fairly by the people that dedicate their lives to that party? Give me a break.

Your first sentence is incorrect and the rest of your post is flawed from there.

Peist2007

Suryavarman wrote: »

Apart from him expressly saying that he would do that.

That is not evidence of anything. Especially when the man is in an election cycle trying to gain votes from people who have been forcefed fear by their media for the past 30 years. Trump will say whatever it takes to win.

Hillary, on the other hand, has had direct involvement in bombing and killing. That's fine with you is it?

oscarBravo

Peist2007 wrote: »

Nope. Try again. I am no Trump supporter. The man is a complete fool.

Then maybe stop defending him at every turn.

It gets a bit tiring having to say this repeatedly to people who haven't bothered to read the thread, but: I'm no Hillary fan. Like it or not, this is a two-horse race, and given a choice between a somewhat hawkish business-as-usual politician and a thin-skinned narcissist with fairly obvious psychological problems and absolutely no qualifications for the job, the choice is pretty clear for me.

Suryavarman

Peist2007 wrote: »

Your first sentence is incorrect and the rest of your post is flawed from there.

No it isn't. If it was you'd be able to say why it was.

Peist2007 wrote: »

That is not evidence of anything. Especially when the man is in an election cycle trying to gain votes from people who have been forcefed fear by their media for the past 30 years. Trump will say whatever it takes to win.

That's just peculiar logic.

Hillary, on the other hand, has had direct involvement in bombing and killing. That's fine with you is it?

I think oppressive dictators are a bad thing. I think supporting uprisings against said dictators can be a good thing. So I don't really have any major problem with her actions as I'm not deluded enough to think that the world would be all sun and rainbows if it wasn't for Hillary Clinton.

ancapailldorcha

Peist2007 wrote: »

Trump will say whatever it takes to win.

So this justifies everything he's said about Muslims, women, the disabled, etc...

Peist2007

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then maybe stop defending him at every turn.

It gets a bit tiring having to say this repeatedly to people who haven't bothered to read the thread, but: I'm no Hillary fan. Like it or not, this is a two-horse race, and given a choice between a somewhat hawkish business-as-usual politician and a thin-skinned narcissist with fairly obvious psychological problems and absolutely no qualifications for the job, the choice is pretty clear for me.

The above shows the big problem with debating with a lot of people on these things. If i criticise Hillary it does not mean i support Trump. Not a difficult concept but seemingly too difficult to some.

If Hillary werent so cravenly corrupt and completely lacking in any integrity, then maybe she would be miles ahead of the thin-skinned narcissist. But she is corrupt and only in it for herself and has proven that many times over in her career. So the thin-skinned narcissist has a real chance.

As for reading back on the thread. Get a grip good lad. People have other things to do and, believe it or not, i dont give two sh1tes what your position is. Especially considering you dont seem to know yourself. The above complains about being branded a Hillary supporter and then goes on to confirm you would be picking Hillary. Brilliant. Anyone can get a mod job these days, clearly.

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

Peist2007 banned for 24 hours for personal abuse and uncivil posting, as set out below:

Peist2007 wrote: »

You are a fool who believes what the television tells him to believe.

Peist2007 wrote: »

Your first sentence is incorrect and the rest of your post is flawed from there.

Peist2007 wrote: »

Not a difficult concept but seemingly too difficult to some.

Peist2007 wrote: »

Get a grip good lad. People have other things to do and, believe it or not, i dont give two sh1tes what your position is. Especially considering you dont seem to know yourself.

Peist2007 wrote: »

Anyone can get a mod job these days, clearly.

Itssoeasy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwyVWrSa168

Lads maybe I'm having a dumb moment but how exactly can Obama or Clinton be blamed for a death in 2004 when neither were in a position of power until 2008. Now unless I've misread what she Said.