Page 13 of 171 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363113 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 390 of 5124

Thread: TRUMP 2016

  1. #361
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    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?
    It's really hard to say since I have such a hard time seeing Bernie getting the nomination. I didn't think Trump would last this long and I was wrong and he may even end up getting the nomination, but if so I think it'll be because he was able to build a lot of momentum from getting so much more attention out of a crowded field where a lot of competing mainstream candidates prevented support from coalescing around another front-runner.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  2. #362
    It's too early to call this year's election, but I think I'm ready to call 2020's: It will not be the incumbent.

  3. #363
    Trump loses in Iowa. Awesome. Rubio had a strong showing too, would of been great if Trump had fallen all the way to 3rd.

  4. #364
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    It's too early to call this year's election, but I think I'm ready to call 2020's: It will not be the incumbent.
    Really? A Clinton or Rubio would have a decent chance at re-election IMO. And I find it hard to imagine that a Trump, Cruz, or Sanders is really going to win the general.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  5. #365
    Trump won't win the nomination. That was a dreadful result for him last night nearly in third place. If he fails in New Hampshire then his bubble will be quite deflated.

    Interestingly if it wasn't for coin tosses Sanders would have won Iowa. There were six delegates chosen by coin toss and Clinton won all 6 thus winning by 5. Had they gone 3 each then Sanders would have won by 1.
    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.

  6. #366
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Interestingly if it wasn't for coin tosses Sanders would have won Iowa. There were six delegates chosen by coin toss and Clinton won all 6 thus winning by 5. Had they gone 3 each then Sanders would have won by 1.
    Whole bunch of shady counting like this one too:
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c457857...ty-iowa-caucus
    "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."

  7. #367
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,033
    Why not just have a primary? A caucus is ridiculous. And yes Maine has one too.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  8. #368
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Trump won't win the nomination. That was a dreadful result for him last night nearly in third place. If he fails in New Hampshire then his bubble will be quite deflated.
    I question this narrative. Trump is not a good candidate for Iowa - GOP caucuses there typically favor evangelical conservatives with strong ground games, something Trump most emphatically is not. I know there was some hype from polling etc. that Trump might beat Cruz, but I think most seasoned observers found that doubtful. Getting second place (and only one fewer delegate) to Cruz is not surprising, albeit somewhat disappointing for his campaign. It's getting first place that would have been surprising; this is just expected.

    I am still skeptical that the GOP will nominate Trump, but I don't think the Iowa result is in any way disastrous for his campaign.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  9. #369
    Wiggins is right. The surprise is how much help Rubio got from the surge in caucus-goers and late-deciders. Trump led polls sure but the pundits kept repeating that the Iowa caucus just doesn't poll well for a reason. As it is, second is a perfectly good result for Trump. Not what he wanted certainly but since he didn't take the traditional stump for the state and relied on new caucusers breaking his way in contravention of the wisdom that many stay undecided until late, it's actually higher than I might have thought. It's New Hampshire that will tell us if Trumps' polling numbers are off for some reason.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  10. #370
    "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."

  11. #371
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Wiggins is right. The surprise is how much help Rubio got from the surge in caucus-goers and late-deciders. Trump led polls sure but the pundits kept repeating that the Iowa caucus just doesn't poll well for a reason. As it is, second is a perfectly good result for Trump. Not what he wanted certainly but since he didn't take the traditional stump for the state and relied on new caucusers breaking his way in contravention of the wisdom that many stay undecided until late, it's actually higher than I might have thought. It's New Hampshire that will tell us if Trumps' polling numbers are off for some reason.
    Sadly NH is an open primary so it may not be the best signal.

    http://www.redstate.com/california_y...ered-democrat/

    "Sorry Democrats. In today’s New York Times, Nate Cohn crunches the statistics on Donald Trump’s supporters and reveals that the Donald “holds his greatest strength among registered Democrats who identify as Republican leaners.” Cohn also put it this way, Trump’s “very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats.”"

    Let me quote it again.

    "Sorry Democrats. In today’s New York Times, Nate Cohn crunches the statistics on Donald Trump’s supporters and reveals that the Donald “holds his greatest strength among registered Democrats who identify as Republican leaners.” Cohn also put it this way, Trump’s “very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats.”"

    My theory is that liberals want Trump to be the nominee so they can crush the Republicans in the general election.

  12. #372
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I question this narrative. Trump is not a good candidate for Iowa - GOP caucuses there typically favor evangelical conservatives with strong ground games, something Trump most emphatically is not. I know there was some hype from polling etc. that Trump might beat Cruz, but I think most seasoned observers found that doubtful. Getting second place (and only one fewer delegate) to Cruz is not surprising, albeit somewhat disappointing for his campaign. It's getting first place that would have been surprising; this is just expected.

    I am still skeptical that the GOP will nominate Trump, but I don't think the Iowa result is in any way disastrous for his campaign.
    While Iowa is notoriously difficult to poll for to underperform all polls significantly (bar one) by well over the margin of error is a very poor result still. If he wins New Hampshire then of course it is game on still for him - and he is polling to win New Hampshire by over 20% which is an incredible lead. If he fails there though it is hard to imagine him remaining a credible candidate.
    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.

  13. #373
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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.
    I guess it's whether you prefer an extremist where you know what to expect vs a loon who is completely unpredictable. And of course it depends on how strong the pm/president position is, if it's not particularly strong I'd prefer the extremist. At least you know what to expect, and checks and balances should keep must extremism out (even if Corbyn is PM, he has to pass everything through the house of commons right? Seems to me that the more extreme the law the harder it'd be to impose party discipline, they all want to be reelected after all).

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    The proper comparison for Trump would be Berlusconi.
    Hehe. Though I think Trump might be less corrupt, but maybe that's wishful thinking. I do think he's less good at politics though.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post

    Interestingly if it wasn't for coin tosses Sanders would have won Iowa. There were six delegates chosen by coin toss and Clinton won all 6 thus winning by 5. Had they gone 3 each then Sanders would have won by 1.
    The more I hear about primaries the more bizarre it gets.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  14. #374
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post


    Hehe. Though I think Trump might be less corrupt, but maybe that's wishful thinking. I do think he's less good at politics though.


    The more I hear about primaries the more bizarre it gets.
    Corruption is largely a matter of the system/group rather than the person. We certainly have our areas where corruption is a problem (construction is one of those areas) but there's an awful lot of effective scrutiny here for it to rise to that level.

    And caucuses aren't primaries. The primaries are mostly straightforward.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #375
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,926
    Sorry, I used the word for the entire candidate nomination process, whatever it's called. It's just weird to me
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  16. #376
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Sorry, I used the word for the entire candidate nomination process, whatever it's called. It's just weird to me
    Hehe just wait until you hear about 'super delegates.'

  17. #377

  18. #378
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,921
    With the exception of Clinton I don't understand how the relevant candidates on either side think they can make their presidency work. Hasn't the Obama presidency been proof enough that holding the keys to the White House amounts to very little if you can't get the people in the Capitol to cooperate?
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  19. #379
    You think Hillary Clinton can get a Republican congress to follow her will?

    If that is the criterion then Rubio seems the best bet.
    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.

  20. #380
    Carpet bomb ISIS,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mb-terrorists/


    Or...

    Nuke Denmark,

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch...ark/vi-BBp7Cde


    Cruz is evil, Trump is vain ? What's your take?
    .

  21. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Corruption is largely a matter of the system/group rather than the person. We certainly have our areas where corruption is a problem (construction is one of those areas) but there's an awful lot of effective scrutiny here for it to rise to that level.

    And caucuses aren't primaries. The primaries are mostly straightforward.
    Flixy was right in his observation -- our political process is confusing, and pretty well fucked up. Since "procedure" differs between (R) and (D) parties (and the parties control the election process) it's a stretch to say we have a representative democracy.

  22. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    With the exception of Clinton I don't understand how the relevant candidates on either side think they can make their presidency work. Hasn't the Obama presidency been proof enough that holding the keys to the White House amounts to very little if you can't get the people in the Capitol to cooperate?
    Last time I checked a ton of things (bad things) have happened. To this day we still have continuous spending despite control of congress. I hate how American politics works. If the senate and the house say no to deficet spending and the president gets in a huff it is somehow congress's fault for 'shutting down the government.' /boggle

  23. #383
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Carpet bomb ISIS,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mb-terrorists/


    Or...

    Nuke Denmark,

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch...ark/vi-BBp7Cde


    Cruz is evil, Trump is vain ? What's your take?
    Cruz is evil for wanting to kill terrorists?

  24. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Last time I checked a ton of things (bad things) have happened. To this day we still have continuous spending despite control of congress. I hate how American politics works. If the senate and the house say no to deficet spending and the president gets in a huff it is somehow congress's fault for 'shutting down the government.' /boggle
    I agree with you on one thing: I hate how American politics "works".

  25. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Cruz is evil for wanting to kill terrorists?
    Do you think the innocent have bomb shelters or something?
    .

  26. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Cruz is evil for wanting to kill terrorists?
    If I were to propose a method for killing 100 terrorists that simultaneously kills 1000 civilians, would I be in the clear, morally speaking, in your eyes?

    For the sake of argument let's say 1000 white civilians.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #387
    If the 1000 civilians were in a foreign country and if there was no alternative way of stopping the terrorists and if the terrorists would have caused more than 1000 innocent deaths then yes. Collateral damage is sad but sometimes necessary.

    If any of those three conditions aren't met then no.
    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. #388
    and how to do you figure in the terrorists you created by killing 1000 innocents? Isn't that part of the problem we have in the middle east already?
    "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."

  29. #389
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    If the 1000 civilians were in a foreign country and if there was no alternative way of stopping the terrorists and if the terrorists would have caused more than 1000 innocent deaths then yes. Collateral damage is sad but sometimes necessary.

    If any of those three conditions aren't met then no.
    Okay, how do you propose to determine whether or not those terrorists will cause more than 1000 civilian deaths? How many more? What does "no alternative" mean?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  30. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    If I were to propose a method for killing 100 terrorists that simultaneously kills 1000 civilians, would I be in the clear, morally speaking, in your eyes?

    For the sake of argument let's say 1000 white civilians.
    I found the bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII morally justified. Did you?

    The answer your question... it depends. Like RB said if those 100 terrorists kill > than 1000 than the cost/benefits fit. *Where possible* civilian casualties should be limited however sometimes it isn't. In general if you bomb terrorists every chance you get most civilians will get the idea that maybe they shouldn't be near terrorists. The ugly not so secret is that many of the people in that region actually support what the terrorists are doing and regularly assist them.

Posting Permissions

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