You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Something like that I guess. 
It's definitely true for me. I think some of Trumps policies are interesting, while many others not. The reason I'd vote for him has little to do with that though. It's because he comes off as independent and I'd like to see what he could do for America.
As a person who has lost complete faith in the political system all these other candidates do nothing for me. I don't believe they have my well being in mind. Trump might.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Something like that I guess.
It's definitely true for me. I think some of Trumps policies are interesting, while many others not. The reason I'd vote for him has little to do with that though. It's because he comes off as independent and I'd like to see what he could do for America.
As a person who has lost complete faith in the political system all these other candidates do nothing for me. I don't believe they have my well being in mind. Trump might.
So you'd build a wall and make Mexico pay for it if it were possible to do it in an economical manner?
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
This thing is going to the convention...for the GOP anyway. What a mess.
I hear rumors, believe it or not, the Democrats are thinking it too.
Bernie right now is on a winning streak, and like I told you before, there is a LARGE LARGE segment of the Democratic party who HATES Hilary, and would almost rather Trump win than Hilary. There's been rumors of an insurrection in the Democratic party that want to pull a brokered convention with the DNC in order to give Bernie a final push over Hilary, feeling the party more lines with Bernie, who's a TRUE progressive (gotta give him that), and Hilary is basically a neo-Con in a Democratic suit (which is true too).
Whether it'll happen? I doubt it. Hilary is a Bilderberger, an insider... she's already a lock. They might lose their stranglehold on the GOP with a Trump nom... they're willing to possibly let that happen. No way they let Hilary get up-staged by Bernie, even if it's the right thing to do.
The political system is shitting itself with the mere thought of a Sanders vs. Trump election (even if I think it'd be bad ass)
Those Bernie supporters ain't shutting up, and many people in the Democratic party have been pissed that people like Bill, Hilary & Obama in recent years have toed the line with liberal social policies, but leaving the door open for almost NEO-CON fiscal policies, with the exception of the tax code. They raise taxes on the upper class, but allow the uber-rich to go off scot-free, allow opt-outs to Medicaid-expansion in states like Florida with sitting Republican governments (which is why I am without health insurance, along with others in other states), and Bernie represents the disenfranchised on the other side who are jobless and saddled with college loan debt because they were sold a bill of goods, and see how the rest of the world works, albeit with VERY little understanding of the problems of socialism... but it means nothing...
In a nutshell, there are Democrats who feel like people like Bill, Hilary & Obama don't go FAR ENOUGH in instituting Democratic and progressive policies in the same manner Trump appeals to populists.
There are many people in the Democratic party in America that would love to see the party institute a system similar to how Canada is run, and don't understand why in the 21st century, when the rest of the world is Socialist, why the U.S. continues to argue about such trivial bullshit.
I can't blame them, even if I don't agree with them on half of what they say.
Bernie appeals to "the rest". Problem is "the rest" is the majority of the Democratic party, REGARDLESS of how many of the insider "Super delegates" Hilary has.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Vince and Linda McMahon Biggest Donors to Trump Foundation
The wrestling magnates donated $5 million between 2009 and 2014 to the foundation.
World Wrestling Entertainment magnates Vince and Linda McMahon were the largest donors to the Donald J. Trump Foundation from 2004 to 2014.
The McMahons donated $5 million to the foundation and Trump himself didn't give any money to the foundation between 2009 and 2014, according to the Washington Post. Apparently Vince McMahon doesn't a hold a grudge for when Trump shaved his head during the Battle of the Billionaires Match.
Trump's campaign released a 93-page list of charity contributions. Trump claimed credit for 2,900 rounds of free golf, 175 free hotel stays, free meals and gift certificates to spas, according to CBS News. Other donations Trump made include land conservation agreements.
Trump has said that he has donated more than $102 million to charity in the past five years. Not a single donation from the 93-page list was a personal donation of Trump's own money.
Source: http://patch.com/connecticut/stamford/v … undation-0
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
That one time Ted Cruz filed a 76-page brief to ban sex toys and ‘autonomous sex’
Further proof Ted Cruz is the ultimate buzz kill: That one time he tried to ban sex toys.
The GOP presidential second-runner once pored over an impassioned plea to cease sex toys in Texas — and his 76-page screed against self-pleasure resurfaced Wednesday thanks to an expose from Mother Jones.
As Texas’ solicitor general in 2007, Cruz filed a brief in the US Court of Appeals upholding a lower court’s decision to criminalize the sale of dildos and other sex toys — or “obscene devices,” as Cruz called them on paper.
The case arose from retailers selling sex toys challenging a state law outlining the promotion of their products. The sex shop vendors argued the law violated the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy — by policing the privacy of the bedroom.
As part of his master debate against sex toys, Cruz and his legal staff argued dildos are not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” and that selling them violates “public morals.”
Elsewhere in the whopping brief, Cruz argued sex toys show “no liberty interest relating to procreation,” and he defended the government’s right to discourage “autonomous sex.”
“There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship,” Cruz wrote.
The appellate court wasn't’ feeling Cruz’s bad vibrations — and ruled against him in a 2-1 vote.
But Cruz carried on with his heroic quest to rub out sex toys, teaming with Texas attorney general Greg Abbott to file another brief requesting a hearing. The duo even asked to take the case to the Supreme Court before they finally pulled out for good.
Cruz would later became a Texas senator, while Abbott serves as the Lone Star’s governor.
Cruz’s war on dildos hasn’t come up during his presidential run, but he hasn’t grown any more sex positive, as he regularly speaks out against abortion, Planned Parenthood and birth control access.
But one person from his past questioned Cruz’s battle against “autonomous sex” — Craig Mazin, the college roommate infamous for spilling embarrassing details on Cruz.
Mazin tweeted Wednesday: “Ted Cruz thinks people don’t have a right to ‘stimulate their genitals.’ I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.”
Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … -1.2600419
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Zombie nominee: These new Trump poll numbers are hideously, unbelievably awful
The basic case for nominating Ted Cruz rather than Donald Trump is that, while Cruz would arguably be the most right-wing nominee in modern American history, and would probably lose to Hillary Clinton, he would not unleash the sort of blood-dimmed tide of down-ticket destruction that Trump would.
A new Washington Post/ABC News poll lends some support to this view: It finds that Trump’s numbers are unspeakably awful among all the voter groups that Republican strategists had hoped to improve the party’s performance among in 2016. On the other hand, Cruz’s numbers aren’t that great among these groups either — they are certainly worse than John Kasich’s are.
First, Trump. Marvel at these findings: Trump is viewed unfavorably by 67 percent of Americans overall; 75 percent of women; 74 percent of young voters; 91 percent of African Americans; 81 percent of Latinos; 73 percent of college-educated whites; 66 percent of white women; and 72 percent of moderates.
Could Trump win somehow by running up a huge margin among white voters — particularly blue collar whites and white men? Well, Trump is viewed unfavorably by 59 percent of whites overall, and he is even viewed unfavorably by majorities of non-college whites (52 percent) and white men (51 percent). And Trump’s awful numbers among college educated whites and white women (detailed above) make the run-up-the-white-vote strategy look still more far fetched.
Now, Cruz. The Texas Senator is viewed unfavorably by 53 percent of women; 50 percent of young voters; 51 percent of blacks; 46 percent of Latinos (versus 32 percent who view him favorably); 65 percent of college educated whites; 56 percent of white women; and 55 percent of moderates. All of that is significantly better than Trump. But he’s underwater with all these groups, and Cruz’s struggles among college educated whites and women (particularly white women) lend some credence to the Democratic assessment that Cruz’s conservatism on social issues could prove crippling among key swing voter groups.
Cruz, too, is running a campaign that seems shaped around the idea that he can win a general election by driving up margins and turnout among white voters (among “Reagan Democrats” — presuming there are many left — and evangelicals). But Cruz is also underwater among whites overall (38-54), non-college whites (41-49), and white men (39-53). And he, too, has pretty bad numbers (detailed above) among college educated whites and white women.
Still, Cruz’s negatives don’t really rival Trump’s hideously awful numbers, which do suggest Trump could prove to be the “zombie nominee” that Republicans fear — potentially unstoppable in the primaries, but damaged beyond hope of repair for the general election. So it seems reasonable for Republicans to conclude that, even if nominating Cruz might weaken their chances at the White House, at least he might not unleash spectacular Trumpian levels of destruction at the level of the battles for control of the Senate and House.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Acquiesce wrote:I can't really buy any media conspiracy theories against Trump. They have been invaluable to his campaign with the over the top amount of coverage he receives. Sure, they can be critical of him, but they've also been his biggest asset.
Even Fox is jumping through hoops to attack him. I've seen Bill O'Reilly pull every trick in the book to put the GOP front runner on the spot. Should that make sense?
They have only been an asset because he turned every hit piece they made back on them. The media isn't helping Trump, it is engaged in a concerted effort to bring him down. This week has finally brought fruits to their labors. That's why they say Trump hacked the system, because he managed to make every negative news story boost his popularity.
Fox also brought on Trump's biggest ass kisser on social media (Piers Morgan) to kiss his ass some more. Trump has barely had to spend a dime due to the wall to wall coverage he was receiving here.
Mr. Trump earned $400 million worth of free media last month, about what John McCain spent on his entire 2008 presidential campaign. Paul Senatori, mediaQuant’s chief analytics officer, says that Mr. Trump “has no weakness in any of the media segments” — in other words, he is strong in every type of earned media, from television to Twitter.
Over the course of the campaign, he has earned close to $2 billion worth of media attention, about twice the all-in price of the most expensive presidential campaigns in history. It is also twice the estimated $746 million that Hillary Clinton, the next best at earning media, took in. Senator Bernie Sanders has earned more media than any of the Republicans except Mr. Trump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upsho … .html?_r=0
The media has easily been his biggest asset.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I'm just going to say it, a radical revolution will never happen. Never.
Sanders sunk any chance of it anyway when he dismissed the south, along with Tim Robbins. Even if it happened, and he filled the Senate and Congress with left wingers and they passed everything he wanted, unemployment will rise, taxes will rise, the cost of living will rise, the economy will sink, and that's all coming from Sanders who says that it will all be worth it later on... Unfortunately, in four years a republican will walk in and run on all of those radical things, undo allof them and take over.
Sanders has been in politics his entire adult life. He's been in Washington for over thirty years. He is the establishment.
Trump will torch him on his commie ties and Castro praise. He will destroy him on taxes. On the debt. Giving the IRS more power. On the economy, etc.
No matter what Trump says, the election will be won on kitchen table politics and people will vote for the guy who wants to build an imaginary wall, over the guy who wants to raise your taxes.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I'm just going to say it, a radical revolution will never happen. Never.
In the long run I think it has to. Maybe not this election, but some time.
Thing as they currently are, are not sustainable in the long term future.
One way or another there is going to have to be some change and a reestablishment of the middle-class or some other type of redistribution of wealth more broadly or things will eventually entirely collapse into chaos.
