Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…312313315317318…332

Comments

  • Options
    #9422
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    RobertKK wrote: »
    He visits Kilkenny where I am from and keeps a Kilkenny hurling shirt in his Speaker's office.

    For those that thought that viewing US election entirely through the "green jersey" wasn't nearly parochial enough...


  • Options
    #9423
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    He already has. When he entered the race, he hadn't a notion of being elected President. Why would he care now that he's going to lose in a landslide? It was never about getting elected - it was about being the most famous person in the world.

    He has to manage to lose in such a way that doesn't "damage the brand", though. After all, the difference between his self-valuation of $10bn, and Forbes' of (something much less) is almost entirely down to the supposed worth of his "name". If "Trump" is synonymous with "spectacular electoral loser", how does that feed into the valuation?


  • Options
    #9424
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    K-9 wrote: »
    Tbh think she can only engage so much or else she ends up at his level. She needs to take a wider approach, address the main concerns but don't trade blow by blow attacks, it looks unpresidential and that only appeals to the base support anyway.

    It will damage Trump eventually, he's the one that needs the swing in the polls, not Hillary. So continuing as he is will not work for him as there seems to be a level on it in support terms. In short he needs to be playing up to the Bernie support more and more as that's his chance of getting elected, going on about the vote being rigged only appeals to his base.

    Jobs and the economy is where it will be won if Trump plays it right. He's giving her an open goal so far.

    Hillary doesn’t seem to be afraid of Trump. In the first debate the key for Trump is to bone up on the issues of the day and especially geopolitical issues because that’s his weakness. The key for Clinton is try and not let Trump rattle her and be prepared to go after Trump’s record.


  • Options
    #9425
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,931 ✭✭✭Christy42


    I feel like it is a good time to remind everyone of the man Trump thinks is fit to be VP.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikax0Y0NJsY&feature=youtu.be

    And people wonder why academics tend to be more democrat than republican.


  • Options
    #9426
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh no, they got you as well! I wonder what Ian Fleming thinks 4 means.

    Four times? Not even CNN could spin it to look good.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9427
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I always wanted Paul Ryan to run. He visits Kilkenny where I am from and keeps a Kilkenny hurling shirt in his Speaker's office. He is well spoken and not hated like the two current front runners.
    Trump can still win, would never write him off, I would if Hillary didn't have such high dislike rate which is near the same as Trump's. There are 13 to 14 weeks for a disaster to hit either campaign.
    If a week is a long time in politics, then 13 to 14 weeks is a lifetime.

    lol (at me) I meant Wikileaks, a Freudian slip...

    Paul Ryan is not as hated as Trump or HRC. However his politics are a mish mash of the worst kinds of nonsense. He's a staunch pro-life Catholic who's somehow also a libertarian. His performances while running with Romney were laughably bad, Biden mad him look like a bold child in the only VP debate.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #9428
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Christy42 wrote: »
    I feel like it is a good time to remind everyone of the man Trump thinks is fit to be VP.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikax0Y0NJsY&feature=youtu.be

    And people wonder why academics tend to be more democrat than republican.

    Oooo, that's winceworthy. Sadly, it'll likely play rather well to the "base".


  • Options
    #9429
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brian? wrote: »
    Paul Ryan is not as hated as Trump or HRC. However his politics are a mish mash of the worst kinds of nonsense. He's a staunch pro-life Catholic who's somehow also a libertarian. His performances while running with Romney were laughably bad, Biden mad him look like a bold child in the only VP debate.

    "Libertarian" is often just the alt-right version of "considers self too hip to identify as 'conservative'." You'll find many a self-described "libertarian" that finds their own pet rationales (of a sort) for abortion bans, opposition to same-sex marriage, foreign wars, protectionism, immigration controls, blatant religious discrimination, etc.

    Case in point: until very recent, Ukip used to style themselves as a "libertarian" party...


  • Options
    #9430
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,931 ✭✭✭Christy42


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Oooo, that's winceworthy. Sadly, it'll likely play rather well to the "base".

    Unfortunately. It isn't just worrying what he says but that so many agree with him on topics like evolution.


  • Options
    #9431
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    He has to manage to lose in such a way that doesn't "damage the brand", though.

    He's laying the groundwork for that already by claiming the election will be rigged. Then, when he loses spectacularly, it won't be his fault.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9432
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Unfortunately. It isn't just worrying what he says but that so many agree with him on topics like evolution.

    But not just that, even, but that his summary of the "new and old theories" of evolution (... i.e. the same theory...) is so clueless. Or brazenly disingenuous, it's hard to tell which.


  • Options
    #9433
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    He's laying the groundwork for that already by claiming the election will be rigged. Then, when he loses spectacularly, it won't be his fault.

    Yeah, heard that theory. I think the "rigged" rhetoric is more to do with trying to appeal to the Sandernistas, for whom "rigged" is a mantra they're repeating to themselves, to salve their conscience as they vote Stein (or Johnson, or Trump, or not at all...).


  • Options
    #9434
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Brian? wrote: »
    Paul Ryan is not as hated as Trump or HRC. However his politics are a mish mash of the worst kinds of nonsense. He's a staunch pro-life Catholic who's somehow also a libertarian. His performances while running with Romney were laughably bad, Biden mad him look like a bold child in the only VP debate.
    alaimacerc wrote: »
    "Libertarian" is often just the alt-right version of "considers self too hip to identify as 'conservative'." You'll find many a self-described "libertarian" that finds their own pet rationales (of a sort) for abortion bans, opposition to same-sex marriage, foreign wars, protectionism, immigration controls, blatant religious discrimination, etc.

    Case in point: until very recent, Ukip used to style themselves as a "libertarian" party...

    Sorry to interrupt your fart sniffing convention but Paul Ryan isn't a libertarian and I don't think he has ever claimed to be anything other than a conservative.


  • Options
    #9435
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Sorry to interrupt your fart sniffing convention but Paul Ryan isn't a libertarian and I don't think he has ever claimed to be anything other than a conservative.

    Fart sniffing competition? During the 2012 campaign he called himself a libertarian many times and said "Atlas Shrugged" was compulsory reading for his staff.

    He's not a libertarian. We both know that. It was his claim to be libertarian I found ridiculous.

    Touchy enough there?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #9436
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Sorry to interrupt your fart sniffing convention
    Delightful.
    but Paul Ryan isn't a libertarian and I don't think he has ever claimed to be anything other than a conservative.
    I'm going to steal the phrase "fluent speaker of libertarianese", which I think rather aptly describes him and his wing of the Republican party. Frequent allusions to Ayn Rand, hanging around the Cato Institute, name-dropping Friedman and Hayek, etc.


  • Options
    #9437
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Unfortunately. It isn't just worrying what he says but that so many agree with him on topics like evolution.

    It's not that they agree with him on it (not all of them anyway), it's that they've sold themselves into his rhetoric on other issues and are determined to stick with it no matter what - which is exactly what Trump fans go so far out of their way to talk about anything policy related in real detail and instead - pretty much without fail - revert to "But but but... Hillary!" for any and every argument, regardless of how little sense it makes or how hypocritical it may be. It's also why they are so transparent, despite their (admittedly almighty) efforts.

    He could tell a crowd that evolution is a myth and most would applaud it. Then he could, in the very same speech, tell the very same crowd that evolution is absolutely real and the same people would cheer. If he said Clinton believed in evolution while he didn't, they would see her as in the wrong and in the right. If he said Clinton doesn't believe in education and he does, the same people would see her as in the wrong and him as in the right.

    I'd give some examples, but this thread is enough of one at this point.


  • Options
    #9438
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,746 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Billy86 wrote: »
    No, I am claiming Trump was for the war on Iraq and was for intervention on Libya. And I am claiming that because he was. And he has shown very little interest in looking into the finer details of much of anything during this election, so what leads you to believe he would do so in office?

    But thanks for confirming what I was talking about. Rice gets Libya to stop pursuing nukes = good, very very good. Clinton gets Iran to stop pursuing nukes = bad, very very bad. That's really where your line of reasoning begins and ends.


    The Iran deal came into place with John Kerry as Secretary of State.

    Hillary was on the Senate committee of Armed services from 2003 to 2009. You don't think she had far more information to decide on things than Trump, and still make bad decisions?


  • Options
    #9439
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The Iran deal came into place with John Kerry as Secretary of State.
    The Iran deal doesn't happen without her work, that's pretty much consensus across the board. Including from the Republicans who disapproved of it... Condoleeza Rice among them.
    Hillary was on the Senate committee of Armed services from 2003 to 2009. You don't think she had far more information to decide on things than Trump, and still make bad decisions?
    There you are again, willing to overlook Condoleeza Rice being chief national security advisor and secretary of state during this period and claiming her tenure was very good because of what happened in that time. But now when it comes to Clinton, she was very bad because of what happened in that time. You don't care at all about what happened in that time, and it's painfully transparent.

    Still, Trump consistently rejects information and data put in front of him, it's a pretty big part of his entire campaign, so no, there is no reason to think he would have looked at the information accordingly and acted any different than he did.


  • Options
    #9440
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Sorry to interrupt your fart sniffing convention but Paul Ryan isn't a libertarian and I don't think he has ever claimed to be anything other than a conservative.

    Ditch the crude language please. It's not conducive to good debate.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #9441
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The Iran deal came into place with John Kerry as Secretary of State.

    Hillary was on the Senate committee of Armed services from 2003 to 2009. You don't think she had far more information to decide on things than Trump, and still make bad decisions?

    Given the way Trump operates I think it's entirely unlikely that you could have fed him information out of a crystal ball laying out exactly what would happen and have him make the right decision if he had already decided to make the wrong decision. You can see this in the way he is campaigning. He doubles down on screw ups. Maybe part of that is because he came from the casino industry.

    It's obvious to me that you're applying far more stringent standards to Clinton than you are to Trump. The simple fact is if you took both CVs without names on them and handed them over to someone to assess as suitable candidates for president of the US, Trump's CV would be tossed immediately. He is not qualified. It's like someone who's done a weekend course in app design applying for a job as senior software designer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9442
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Amerika wrote: »
    Hillary doesn’t seem to be afraid of Trump. In the first debate the key for Trump is to bone up on the issues of the day and especially geopolitical issues because that’s his weakness. The key for Clinton is try and not let Trump rattle her and be prepared to go after Trump’s record.

    Well she has to challenge him at times, otherwise she wouldn't be addressing his concerns, but she needs to keep the more personal stuff out of it.

    As for Trump and geopolitical stuff? Is it really that much of a vote winner though, I mean would it be on peoples minds when they go into a polling booth? For me foreign policy seems to be a box to tick while electioneering and in 1 debate but as Bill said, tis the economy stupid.

    Disaffection with the direction of the economy over the last 10/20 years is a big reason Trump is the candidate and why Sanders did so well. He needs to concentrate on that, there's a fair few Democrats and Independents that could be won over on that.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #9443
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    K-9 wrote: »
    Well she has to challenge him at times, otherwise she wouldn't be addressing his concerns, but she needs to keep the more personal stuff out of it.

    As for Trump and geopolitical stuff? Is it really that much of a vote winner though, I mean would it be on peoples minds when they go into a polling booth? For me foreign policy seems to be a box to tick while electioneering and in 1 debate but as Bill said, tis the economy stupid.

    Disaffection with the direction of the economy over the last 10/20 years is a big reason Trump is the candidate and why Sanders did so well. He needs to concentrate on that, there's a fair few Democrats and Independents that could be won over on that.
    They will be pounding each other on the economy, jobs, taxing and spending. Hillary has the edge on foreign policy despite the horrendous job she did as SOS, and Trump has to appear up to snuff. And with all the troubles happening in the world, especially in our NATO alliance countries and immigration, I think this election people will be keen on foreign policy more than previous ones.

    I heard a great word today to describe this election... the kakistocracy election.


  • Options
    #9444
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    His Putin fascination is weird, I get he wants to appear "strong" and decisive but pissing off NATO members is the wrong way to go about it. I don't see how cosying up to Russia works. Republicans argued Obama was ignoring Russia so why try and be all pally with Putin now? If there are votes in foreign policy he seems to be going the wrong way about getting them.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #9445
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I always wanted Paul Ryan to run. He visits Kilkenny where I am from and keeps a Kilkenny hurling shirt in his Speaker's office. He is well spoken and not hated like the two current front runners.
    Trump can still win, would never write him off, I would if Hillary didn't have such high dislike rate which is near the same as Trump's. There are 13 to 14 weeks for a disaster to hit either campaign.
    If a week is a long time in politics, then 13 to 14 weeks is a lifetime.

    lol (at me) I meant Wikileaks, a Freudian slip...

    How does someone from Kilkenny end up being a Trump supporter ??


  • Options
    #9446
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,746 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Calina wrote: »
    Given the way Trump operates I think it's entirely unlikely that you could have fed him information out of a crystal ball laying out exactly what would happen and have him make the right decision if he had already decided to make the wrong decision. You can see this in the way he is campaigning. He doubles down on screw ups. Maybe part of that is because he came from the casino industry.

    It's obvious to me that you're applying far more stringent standards to Clinton than you are to Trump. The simple fact is if you took both CVs without names on them and handed them over to someone to assess as suitable candidates for president of the US, Trump's CV would be tossed immediately. He is not qualified. It's like someone who's done a weekend course in app design applying for a job as senior software designer.

    This is how I look at it.
    Hillary for me is proven incompetence,while Trump is unproven competence.
    Trump might be equally as incompetent as Hillary.


  • Options
    #9447
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,746 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    marienbad wrote: »
    How does someone from Kilkenny end up being a Trump supporter ??

    I am anti-Hillary, a 100% proven warmonger, and even CNN on their state of the race program said: that while Trump lies, Hillary sticks to her carefully scripted lies and it is why she doesn't do press conferences as she is programmed as what to say.

    There are a lot of people who dislike Hillary more than Trump.


  • Options
    #9448
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,746 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    K-9 wrote: »
    His Putin fascination is weird, I get he wants to appear "strong" and decisive but pissing off NATO members is the wrong way to go about it. I don't see how cosying up to Russia works. Republicans argued Obama was ignoring Russia so why try and be all pally with Putin now? If there are votes in foreign policy he seems to be going the wrong way about getting them.

    Trump also criticised Saudi Arabia, an enemy of Russia. Trump linked Saudi Arabia with 9/11, and the speculation is Trump is right on this.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/finding-discussion-and-narrative-regarding-certain-sensitive-narrative-matters-saudi-arabia-911-11-a6999091.html
    former Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the former head of the Senate intelligence committee, reiterated his belief that Saudi Arabia was involved in the attacks at the highest level. He said "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is: did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported? So who was the most likely entity to have provided them that support? I think all the evidence points to Saudi Arabia. I think it covers a broad range, from the highest ranks of the Kingdom through these, what would be private entities.”

    I would rather have a country being friendly with Russia, rather than calling Saudi Arabia 'an ally'. With friends like the Saudis, who needs enemies?

    Hillary Clinton and the Clintons are too cosy with the Saudis and their foundation has benefited significantly from the Saudis.

    It would make world politics interesting if Trump became president and managed to get a good relationship with Russia.
    It would be a union that would be very bad for Sunni Islamic extremism that countries like Saudi Arabia are responsible for.


  • Options
    #9449
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Hillary for me is proven incompetence,while Trump is unproven competence.
    I shudder to think what Trump would have to do for you to consider him incompetent.

    As far as I can see, the only quasi-successful thing he's ever built is his own brand, and that's pretty tarnished lately.

    How do you look at someone whose entire candidacy has been the world's longest slow-motion trainwreck and think to yourself: there's someone who just might make a good president, given a chance?

    It seems to me that your sole criterion for "might be a good president" is "isn't Hillary Clinton", which is, frankly, a peculiarly single-minded way of judging the race.


  • Options
    #9450
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    RobertKK wrote: »
    This is how I look at it.
    Hillary for me is proven incompetence,while Trump is unproven competence.
    Trump might be equally as incompetent as Hillary.

    Do you see any contradictions in the above statements?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9451
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    RobertKK wrote: »
    There are a lot of people who dislike Hillary more than Trump.

    Sure there are. But are there enough tribal Republicans and "angry white guys" to swing a general election? (Genuine question, not complacency...)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement