I hate both nominees and I don't think they need to add additional people on the stage. Someone polls for over 10% give them a slot, if not, sorry.
I hate both nominees and I don't think they need to add additional people on the stage. Someone polls for over 10% give them a slot, if not, sorry.
Do you care who's doing the polls, who's paying for them, what metrics they use, or the margin of error?Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If you hate both nominees, why wouldn't you want another candidate on the stage?
It's all that's being offered because it's all people are willing to vote for or expressing any preference for already. When third-party candidates have actually demonstrated any real following, they've been brought in to the process. But none of them have managed much success or momentum except when one of the major parties has literally fallen apart (and not just seen some splintering or disagreement which you grandly claim is tantamount to falling apart). And it's been like this since party factionalism first developed in the first six years of the US' existence after adopting the US Constitution.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? That dichotomy/dilemma has only gotten worse over time in the political arena. You may not agree with my assessment that the Republican Party is falling apart at the seems....but you should at least admit the challenge Republicans face when a guy like Trump is their party's nominee, and standard-bearer.
And when you say third party candidates with any following have been "brought into the process", I think that's the Tea Party co-opting the (R) party....and shutting down the government.
In this case, we do demonstrably have one of them coming first, being able to drum up any substantial support at all. That actually happens, GGT. Most recently in 1992 by Ross Perot. But even when they get media attention, it doesn't end up making a difference. Again, see Ross Perot in '92 and how Clinton carried a majority, not just a plurality, of the popular vote in addition to his lead in the electoral count. You can also see it regularly in other countries, even ones which have multiple parties and proportional voting, where there are frequently one or two major parties and then a bunch of small fry.Which came first, the chicken or the egg? That dichotomy/dilemma has only gotten worse over time in the political arena. You may not agree with my assessment that the Republican Party is falling apart at the seems....but you should at least admit the challenge Republicans face when a guy like Trump is their party's nominee, and standard-bearer.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well, how do candidates "drum up" support to begin with? Comparing today with 1992 isn't accurate or helpful. In fact, all the pundits and political experts were wrong when it came to Trump and Sanders.
Curious what state-by-state polling begins to look like in places like NY. Is Trump somehow going to have an edge because he's a New Yorker? I highly doubt it, but wondering if some swing-state tendencies will be scrambled after a few months of the media calling people pigs for supporting Trump.
After a while people start to say, "Yeah, I'm a pig, so what?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03ede4414187657-36% of Repubs back Trump’s call to raise min wage
52-43% or Repubs support Trump’s call to NOT raise min wage
Hope is the denial of reality
If Trump has 'an edge' it's because he knows how to use social media....which then forces the news media to follow his narrative. Clicks and trends matter now more than ever, since serious journalism got co-opted by Twitter feeds.
Hey Dread, I have a vague memory from a few years back, where you said Twitter was a platform designed mostly for media/news professionals, and probably wouldn't become mainstream. It's almost quaint to remember Facebook's transition, too.
"Serious journalism' Heh. I'd love to see what you classify as 'serious journalism.'
Well, that's in dispute, right? I don't think any of the major TV networks have engaged in 'serious journalism'.....and it's debatable if people are relying on 'serious journalism' for information, or just their Twitter feed.
So you aren't going to give an example?
An example of what, serious journalism? I'd say NPR and PBS are good examples, but you'd probably say they're examples of teh lib'rul media. I think BBC is a good source of news too, but you'd probably say they have a European bias.
If you want an example of US News....I'm sorry to say that it's probably linked to Twitter feeds and Facebook posts, ie gossip. Trademarks and Branding is now part of our political process, and we call it democracy.
Last edited by GGT; 06-03-2016 at 07:04 AM.
My takeaway is that 65% of Republicans are racist.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/0...mments-racist/
Hope is the denial of reality
Now if he were racist, do you think he would have been able to say that he employs thousands of Mexicans in his various enterprises?
Now I do believe his making those comments had nothing at all to do with race and everything to do with his trying to make the topic about something besides his fraudulent practices.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Can't decide if it's racist or just conspiratorial in the same vein as "white genocide"
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
A) You mean being racist and trying to make money are mutually exclusive?
B) Trump might or might not be racist, but that statement was unambiguously racist. He said someone could not do their job properly purely because of their ethnicity. He then went on to attack the judge for non-existent affiliations on the basis of that ethnicity. This is textbook racism.
Edit: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/b...121827406.html Several prominent Republicans are now on the record calling the comments racist, but refusing to back off their endorsement of Trump. What a great message they're sending about the direction of the GOP.
Last edited by Loki; 06-08-2016 at 07:44 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
I wonder why people still worry about the fact that they have only the choice between the R and D candidates after the 2016 primaries. The R nomination process has been hijacked by an outsider, and the D process was close to be hijacked by a man who was only nominally a D.
Congratulations America
By that line of reasoning slave owners weren't really racist because they bought africans.
Congratulations America
I think your sarcasm detector is broken ...
I've not heard what comments he said about the judge?
Fuzzy is the king of devil advocacy. Hard to tell.
Hope is the denial of reality
That was an actual defense of his comment Trump made.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
What % of Democrats support Affirmative Action? I don't like Trump but supporting a racist policy seems worse than making a racist statement IMO.
My takeaway is that 65% of Republicans are racist.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/0...mments-racist/
Yeah, providing a minimal advantage to disadvantaged groups is much worse than seeking to exclude all minorities from decision-making positions.
Hope is the denial of reality
Trump doesn't want to exclude all minorities from decision-making positions. He just wants to exclude all people from decision-making positions that negatively impact or negatively reflect on him and will use any argument that avails itself to do so.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
He may have been serious when he said it but I assumed you were sarcastic when you wrote it.
He said someone can't do their job properly in this particular case because of presumed bias due to rumors of him being affiliated (either directly or indirectly) with organisations that oppose Trump for, among other things, his dumb-as-shit wall-building proposal. Of course the fact that the judge's parents are Mexican is relevant to Trump's remark, but while I can acknowledge the racist aspect of it I think it's primarily an expression of the persecution-complex Trump shares with 95% of Republicans and 80% of democrats (made-up numbers) as well as his blatant (and generally well-received) disregard for basic norms of decency. It's the kind of low-grade semi-rational racism that may even lurk deep within the hearts of several people on this forum.
I'm also uncertain as to how that poll should be interpreted, although this may stem from my bias against Yougov and their methods. Judging from that poll--and based on your off-the-cuff remark--65% of Republicans and about 40% of all white Americans are racists. I'm not saying that's wrong but does that sound reasonable to you? Do other forum-members agree with that assessment? Are you sure they're not just displeased or "Mexican-critical" or something? Is it possible that they simply have a different view of what constitutes racism? Do they suck at comprehending written information? Could they be answering a different question, eg. "Is Trump a racist? Y/N" rather than the specific question about whether or not the comment was racist?
This isn't surprising. #anyonebutHillary. This is the kind of phony realpolitik-inspired integrity-bereft politics that have become the norm and I can only hope it'll cost them dearly in the upcoming election.Edit: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/b...121827406.html Several prominent Republicans are now on the record calling the comments racist, but refusing to back off their endorsement of Trump. What a great message they're sending about the direction of the GOP.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Or is it.
Congratulations America
I think some people are confused about a judge's bias in combination with race. I think most people are racist to some extent by the way. The difference is about how we keep the racist inside under control.
Congratulations America
Except Trump goes out of his way to attack all minorities, which means that all minorities must be excluded from decision-making positions (unless they're court minorities, like a certain former attorney general).
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote