Page 12 of 171 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262112 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 5128

Thread: TRUMP 2016

  1. #331
    I cannot really believe that it is possible to force someone from running at all. The US is still an open democracy as far as I know, and to me that means everyone has the right to vote and to be voted.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  2. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    I cannot really believe that it is possible to force someone from running at all. The US is still an open democracy as far as I know, and to me that means everyone has the right to vote and to be voted.
    I can't just will myself to be added on the ballot... but yes if everyone wanted to write in my name I could be elected president too.

  3. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    I cannot really believe that it is possible to force someone from running at all. The US is still an open democracy as far as I know, and to me that means everyone has the right to vote and to be voted.
    You're not prevented from running but the law permits who is allowed (and not) onto the ballot paper. Since primaries are covered by laws too then they can be used by the law as a test, whether the parties have standing or not is irrelevant the law has standing. The candidate has had the right to be voted for, but they have simply lost the ballot they chose to run on as the law stated beforehand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  4. #334
    I wasn't aware that you can write down your own candidate. Still a big disadvantage though.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  5. #335
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post

    At least with a two party system you know what you're getting before the election and we're normally good at weeding out the Trumps and Corbyn's before they reach office, either in the party stage or the general election stage. With a plethora party system its harder to sift out those undesirables. To win in the US you have to win both the primary and the national election, winning the first one without the other achieves nothing.
    Don't get me wrong, I can see the upsides of your systems, but I also see the downsides. Same for our own system here. This is just one of those peculiarities
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Running without the formal support of the party pretty much does mean that though. You'd need to build your own nation-spanning GOTV effort, for instance, and in not all that much time. There are a whole lot of obstacles. In many respects someone who didn't participate in the primary stands a better chance because they wouldn't have been expecting to have this established support system from the party to draw on for the general election. Anyone who decides to continue campaigning despite losing the primary would be a lot further behind, trying to expand and prolong the network built from their primary bid in ways they hadn't anticipated. And no one in the GOP primary now is exactly a screaming centrist either. "At least I'm not Trump" is not the best motivational message to get a large moderate bloc to participate rather than just stay home.
    Last bit is a good point, regarding the first, I could see it happen if the party implodes and a lot of (wealthy) backers and organization also ditches the party.
    The parties aren't exactly centralized monoliths. They're aggregations of state parties and even many of those are more collections of county lists than a central organization. US political parties are coordinators and facilitators. The candidate is in that party because they can use it. And the party would have no problem with Trump or anyone else out there just being members, people making donations, proferring their vote, etc. which means they don't have much of a leg to stand on for objecting when the person turns things around and uses them in turn.
    I know that, but I find it similarly odd that those people are a member of the party in the first place. Of course it does make sense considering you have in practice a two party system, which means it's practically impossible to run as a third party candidate without the money and organization you'd otherwise have. Over here it's not unheard of that people with too extreme views (e.g. Wilders) are booted from the party and start their own.
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    I wasn't aware that you can write down your own candidate. Still a big disadvantage though.
    Isn't most counting done by machines these days? In which case writing in a name would probably end up not being counted, unless a manual recount is done.
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    I cannot really believe that it is possible to force someone from running at all. The US is still an open democracy as far as I know, and to me that means everyone has the right to vote and to be voted.
    IDK, over here you need to have 30 letters of support from each voting district where you are running, and pay a deposit that is forfeited if you gain too few votes (3/4 of the amount of votes needed for one seat), to prevent simply anyone from entering. Which obviously also means that simply writing in a name won't work here. Also to be eligible for subsidies you need to have a party that meets certain requirements (e.g. Wilders' party does not receive a subsidy because it's not really a party in the sense the other ones are, more of a one man band with subordinates.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  6. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Isn't most counting done by machines these days? In which case writing in a name would probably end up not being counted, unless a manual recount is done.
    Not here, but I know the US uses it. But there is probably a cross "other" and when you tick that, a human has to read what your voted.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  7. #337
    Good article:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...o-conservative

    "In pretty much any fight between Trump and Cruz, I side with Cruz unapologetically because Cruz is an ideologically consistent conservative (for instance, whatever flaws a president Cruz might have, I don’t worry about the kinds of Supreme Court justices he would look for). Indeed, among the reasons I hope Cruz beats Trump in Iowa, one of the biggest is that I want Cruz to be rewarded for opposing the crony capitalist moonshine known as ethanol. Governor Terry Branstad came out against Cruz — violating his pledge of neutrality — because as the living embodiment of the GOP establishment in Iowa, he sees Cruz as a threat to the ethanol racket. Given Cruz’s need to win in Iowa, that makes his position a profile in courage. Trump meanwhile is pandering to the ethanol lobby. Perhaps pandering is the wrong word, given that support for industrial policy and crony capitalism is perfectly in sync with his economic philosophy. And that, again, is one of the many reasons I don’t think the guy is a conservative."

    My preference among the candidates with any possibility of winning are Rubio > Cruz > Trump. Every new story I hear about Trump the less conservative I see him as. He is a blatant opportunist and he is in no way a conservative. He is a populist and supports big government. He's given to Democrats more than Republicans in campaign contributions. He bragged about how good of a friend he was with the Clintons. I am absolutely baffled by his popularity at this point.

    Do the limited government tea party folks like him? They shouldn't he abused eminent domain and supports shit like ethanol. (Frankly he probably doesn't this is just Iowa electioneering). He doesn't stand on the principal that the government that governs least governs best.

    How about the Christian Conservative wing. Have they LOOKED at Trump? His absurd ego, his creepy comments about his daughter, this isn't a moral guy. I'm not a fan of religion and politics intersecting however if you want that, why would you pick someone who doesn't share your values?

    Anti-Immigration folks - Have they seen his past comments that are utterly at odds with his current statements? How the hell could they possibly trust a guy that is a reality television star? Does the past not matter at all? The guy blamed the Republicans for being 'mean spirited' as a reason they lost the 2012 election when it came to immigration.

    Anti-Abortion folks - Commonly mixed in with the Christian Conservative block. The guy flat out says he's pro-choice last decade, going so far as to say he's OK with partial birth abortion. Obviously he is saying he is pro-life now but again... who actually believes him?

    Gun Folks - Int he past he has been critical of the NRA. He wasn't an out and out liberal before but hardly a champion for gun rights. And who up on those debate stages wants more gun control?

    So frankly I DON'T GET IT. Every person I've talked to that I know dislikes Trump. They range from hard core libertarians, traditional conservatives and liberals. None of them like Trump. Where the F is this support coming from?

  8. #338
    Where do you believe it's come from? If you HAVE to answer your own question, what do you think the answer might be? Do you have no idea at all?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  9. #339
    Apart from "people who don't vote all that often" I mean.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  10. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Where do you believe it's come from? If you HAVE to answer your own question, what do you think the answer might be? Do you have no idea at all?
    I don't really have any evidence to support it but I think it comes from a combination of things.

    1. The "I don't know much about politics but I heard that sound bite and I like it!"
    2. The group of folks who are reflexively against anything the MSM supports. IE "Liberals dislike Trump so I like Trump."
    3. The "I don't know much about politics but I don't want to sound like a dummy so I'll say the first name that pops into my head."
    4. Liberals pretending to be conservatives hoping the train wreck candidacy of Trump makes it to the general election.
    5. Single issue voters who finally have someone saying the right things on immigration. No matter how stupid they are (yes we are really going to get Mexico to pay for the wall... right... pipe dream. I want the wall too but this is just pandering).

    If I am right (and I'm praying I am) this means that Trump support is soft and in things like the Iowa Caucus he won't do well. I really wish some of the other Republicans running would drop out. Trump is rarely someone's 2nd choice so having them drop out is good for Trump's rivals.

  11. #341
    Apart from item 5 pretty much everything you propose may as well work for one or more of the other candidates except in one sense, namely that, mainstream media love or no, Trump currently seems more anti-establishment than his biggest rivals. Though he's polling high in many different categories he's polling esp. high among people who are deemed less likely to vote in the primaries. Who are they and why have they been less likely to vote in primaries in the past? Perhaps the answer to that question may help you understand where Trump's support is coming from and why.

    Trump's supporters are also older white blue-collar people and homemakers who're less likely to be affluent or to have attained higher levels of education. In what ways might that increase his appeal to that demographic?

    Trump's supporters seem even more resistant to basic principles of science, critical thinking etc than those of the other candidates. Putting aside hot-button issues (hot-button in the US I mean, not anywhere else in the civilized world), Trump's supporters seem immune to any evidence of lying or folly on the part of their prince. Where do you think those people came from? They didn't just pop out of nowhere. They've been among you for decades, they've been nurtured by your politicians and your media, and they've been making babies like you wouldn't believe.

    It's entirely possible that Trump's supporters won't bother to show up to vote but it's not likely that they'll go away. The popular support, regardless of whether or not it will be relevant, seems real.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  12. #342
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    I think you missed the anti establishment I don't care if he is unqualified but he isn't establishment and he is not PC so I like him crowd.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  13. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    I think you missed the anti establishment I don't care if he is unqualified but he isn't establishment and he is not PC so I like him crowd.
    True though the hole 'anti-establishment' should be better defined. I mean honestly would you call McCain part of the establishment? Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? Three VERY different individuals but depending on your definition...

  14. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Apart from item 5 pretty much everything you propose may as well work for one or more of the other candidates except in one sense, namely that, mainstream media love or no, Trump currently seems more anti-establishment than his biggest rivals. Though he's polling high in many different categories he's polling esp. high among people who are deemed less likely to vote in the primaries. Who are they and why have they been less likely to vote in primaries in the past? Perhaps the answer to that question may help you understand where Trump's support is coming from and why.

    Trump's supporters are also older white blue-collar people and homemakers who're less likely to be affluent or to have attained higher levels of education. In what ways might that increase his appeal to that demographic?

    Trump's supporters seem even more resistant to basic principles of science, critical thinking etc than those of the other candidates. Putting aside hot-button issues (hot-button in the US I mean, not anywhere else in the civilized world), Trump's supporters seem immune to any evidence of lying or folly on the part of their prince. Where do you think those people came from? They didn't just pop out of nowhere. They've been among you for decades, they've been nurtured by your politicians and your media, and they've been making babies like you wouldn't believe.

    It's entirely possible that Trump's supporters won't bother to show up to vote but it's not likely that they'll go away. The popular support, regardless of whether or not it will be relevant, seems real.
    If they don't vote I really don't care. You can't force people to be interested in politics. This is part of why I hate the idiotic notion that 'everyone should vote!' No... please if you don't understand what you are voting for stay home.

    I don't know if they are immune to evidence or if they haven't bothered to look at the evidence. I'm hopeful for the attack ads in Iowa to work.

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

  15. #345
    Not looking at the evidence is part of the defense that grants them immunity to evidence, and it is one of many traits you guys have cultivated and that are now once again biting you in the ass just a little. But what I said about them being irregular voters was in response to your question about where they're coming from. The answer, in short, is: "Mostly not from your circle of friends and acquaintances." You should care, at least enough to try to determine whether or not there's a significant probability of them actually showing up to vote.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Not looking at the evidence is part of the defense that grants them immunity to evidence, and it is one of many traits you guys have cultivated and that are now once again biting you in the ass just a little. But what I said about them being irregular voters was in response to your question about where they're coming from. The answer, in short, is: "Mostly not from your circle of friends and acquaintances." You should care, at least enough to try to determine whether or not there's a significant probability of them actually showing up to vote.
    By their nature it makes it difficult to tell if they will show up to the polls. Is this an election that will bring people who have never voted before to the polls? Pretty hard to say since by definition they haven't gone to the polls in the past. And its rather laughable to say that 'you guys have cultivated' a system of not looking at the evidence. If anything the opposite is true. Which party tried to control the air waves and prevent free speech? (Look up fairness doctrine, it was an American issue). The cure to speech you don't like is more speech, that is what conservatives believe. On the other hand liberals pride themselves at heckling conservative speakers when they try to talk at college campuses and actively try to censor speech they dislike.

  17. #347
    Lolol young earth creationism climate change deniers birthers lol.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  18. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Lolol young earth creationism climate change deniers birthers lol.
    Please. Most republicans aren't young earth creationists nor are they birthers. Climate change is an interesting one because the simple truth is dire predictions of the end of the world are false. Remember global cooling? Remember the guy who thought we'd be experiencing global famine by the year 2000? Long history of eco nuts preaching the end of the world. And liberals don't do themselves any favors when they compared climate change 'deniers' to Holocaust deniers, which just another attempt to silence and intimidate. Ie again not the desire for rational debate but simply a desire to silence people.

    *Note the fact that climate changes (getting hotter and colder, hello ice ages happen) isn't in doubt what is in doubt is the proposed theory that CO2 is the primary cause of changes in climate.

  19. #349
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5g5...s#t=608.397127

    Bill says "You're a Christian shouldn't you forgive?" (Regarding Megan Kelly and what Trump thought was an unfair question."

    Response:

    "Yeah it probably is but you know its also called an eye for an eye, you can look at it that way."

    /boggle

    If your going to claim to be something you should understand the theology of it.

  20. #350
    A very interesting piece even if I disagree with a lot of it: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ght-213572?o=0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #351
    It says more about the jaded commentator than anyone else.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  22. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    A very interesting piece even if I disagree with a lot of it: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ght-213572?o=0
    This line is true at least:

    "Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He’s so obviously faking it."

    Yes he is obviously faking it.

    "They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they’re looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How’d that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?"

    This is where it gets a bit off base, why would Christians *believe* Trump is telling them the truth about politics when he would lie to their face about their religion? Beware wolves in sheep's clothing. It seriously doesn't make sense to me.

    We'll see how the next few weeks go. I'm hoping Trump's support implodes the guy IS bad for Conservatism because he isn't a conservative. He's a NY liberal and he is pandering hardcore.

  23. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    ... lie to their face about their religion?
    Never mind. Rule 12
    Last edited by Being; 01-30-2016 at 06:10 AM.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  24. #354
    How do primaries actually work in the US, do you go to a polling booth, or is it done by post or what? Do you have to be a registered party member to vote in that parties primary and if so how is that enforced?
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  25. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    How do primaries actually work in the US, do you go to a polling booth, or is it done by post or what? Do you have to be a registered party member to vote in that parties primary and if so how is that enforced?
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politi...ses-explainer/

    Also primaries are a bit different:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/caucus-vs-primary/

    If it is confusing don't forget that this is not an election that is 'run' by the government. Theoretically either party could change the way their primary and caucus system works. All it does is say who the GOP and the Democratic *PARTY* (private organizations) decide who will be the person that runs on their ticket.

  26. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    How do primaries actually work in the US, do you go to a polling booth, or is it done by post or what? Do you have to be a registered party member to vote in that parties primary and if so how is that enforced?
    The voting process is the same as for the general election typically. States usually take the opportunity to bundle other voting topics with the primary (bonds, public initiatives, off-term elections, etc.) so the usual apparatus applies. Party affiliation is already a part of voter-registration and the county clerks maintains those lists. As to who can vote in a party's primary, that's something that varies by state. Many have closed primaries, they only accept registered voters affiliated with their party, others do semi-open, they'll accept those from a select group of parties or anyone unaffiliated with the other major party, etc. They'll print out multiple sets of ballots for the different parties that all have the generic topics also up for a vote or the people at the booth will mark the appropriate affiliation on the ballot when giving it to you after confirming your identity and eligibility, so you could try and cast a vote in the wrong section but it would get automatically discounted.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #357
    A while back (can't remember which thread) someone questioned if I really thought that the prospect of a Trump presidency was less scary than the prospect of Corbyn as Prime Minister, for which I'm entirely serious - Corbyn is an extremist true believer whereas Trump is a populist who could roll back from his extremes in reality if elected.

    This BBC review of the candidates kind of matches what I'm thinking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35413871 - The right-wing American equivalent of Corbyn isn't Trump from the sound of it, it is Cruz. Though at least Cruz doesn't seem to hate his own country but he is the closest equivalent I can see rather than Trump.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  28. #358
    The proper comparison for Trump would be Berlusconi.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  29. #359
    So, come on then: Sanders vs Trump. Who wins? Who should win? To what level of screaming, incoherent bullshittery will Twitter descend into this time?
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  30. #360
    Sanders could end up being polarizing to the point that a lot of people get pushed to Trump out of fear of change. Even wiggin threw shade at Sander's climate change position. People are stupid.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •