Jump to content

US Elections 2016


JamboX2

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Watt-Zeefuik

    422

  • niblick1874

    242

  • alwaysthereinspirit

    153

  • Maple Leaf

    150

J.T.F.Robertson

Rubio was right - Trump had spelt it "chocker", and wrote "honer" instead of "honor" (US spelling, of course).

 

To be fair to Rubio, he had a good night last night. His "watch salesman" line was his best yet vs Trump. You just wonder why he hasn't performed like that in any of the other debates.

  

But Trump apparently did spell it "chocker", initially. For all that matters.

My mistook then. I watched it twice anaw, just to be "sure". :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not 'invaded' but they did bomb:

 

Libya

Syria

Iraq

Pakistan

Somalia

Yemen

Serbia

Montenegro

Bosnia

Sudan

Afghanistan

 

Etc. As bad as each other.

 

I'm guessing that Pax Americana hasn't quite kicked in yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On a side note. There is, and will be, some very telling stuff (for those that know what it means) coming out in one or two inquests, or what ever you want to call them, into the circumstances of Scalia's death. I am not saying that he was killed (I don't think he was) but it is already coming out that he was not alone and the people that were there has got people asking, who the, and what the, **** are they.

 

 It's not how he died that has created all the strange goings on to do with the aftermath of his Death, It is who he was with, what they are, and why he was there with them.

 

 

 

 

I think I speak for everyone on this thread when I invite you politely and respectfully to make that your last contribution.

 

 

You may be right.

 

I know a couple of guys over here who are conservatives through and through - to stop Trump (if he gets the Rep. nomination) one has said he'd abstain and the other said he'd vote for Sanders/Clinton. Now, that's classic anecdotal evidence, i.e. doesn't really mean much, but it is an interesting wee window into that tranche of Republican voters who will be stuck between a rock and hard place if its Trump vs Clinton/Sanders. This article covers their dilemma: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dilemma-of-conservatives-who-say-theyll-never-vote-for-donald-trump?mbid=social_facebook

 

My feeling is that there's enough of them to stop the Trump bandwagon. But who knows. We're well into uncharted territory.

 

(Mod delete.  This thread is about the American race for President.  Any talk about Justice Scalia's death is off topic.  Please stay on topic)

 

I will give you another example. You say that some Republicans will abstain or vote democrat because of Trump while purposely omitting the part of my post that points out (as others have on this thread) that some democrats are so sick of the old boys act, they are considering abstaining or voting for Trump if it comes down to him or Clinton.

 

I have no leanings towards any candidate (ok, maybe Sanders), do you (that is a rhetorical question).

 

If you do not like or agree with what I say you could at least debate it (are you capable of that) as apposed to sidestepping and/or purposely misleading threw omission and then throwing insults. 

 

I will be posting on this thread again.

 

Yours

 

Someone that doesn't button up the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Mod delete.  This thread is about the American race for President.  Any talk about Justice Scalia's death is off topic.  Please stay on topic)

 

I don't get this? I am just going with the flow. There are five posts concerning Justice Scalia's death before my post.

 

I will give you another example. You say that some Republicans will abstain or vote democrat because of Trump while purposely omitting the part of my post that points out (as others have on this thread) that some democrats are so sick of the old boys act, they are considering abstaining or voting for Trump if it comes down to him or Clinton.

 

I have no leanings towards any candidate (ok, maybe Sanders), do you (that is a rhetorical question).

 

If you do not like or agree with what I say you could at least debate it (are you capable of that) as apposed to sidestepping and/or purposely misleading threw omission and then throwing insults. 

 

I will be posting on this thread again.

 

Yours

 

Someone that doesn't button up the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niblick desperate for attention again? Dear oh dear.

Bringing his CTs and hatred of Clinton to the table.

 

He's talking to himself, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton was expected to thump Sanders in South Carolina by about 25%.  Instead, she thumped him by about 50%.

 

Super Tuesday may very well be the end of the road for Sanders.  Good guy and brought a lot of good to the campaign, but by March 15 my guess is this is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton was expected to thump Sanders in South Carolina by about 25%.  Instead, she thumped him by about 50%.

 

Super Tuesday may very well be the end of the road for Sanders.  Good guy and brought a lot of good to the campaign, but by March 15 my guess is this is over.

Yep.  Bernie is about done.  Too bad.

 

Looks like it will be a Clinton v Trump race for President.  Whoda thunk it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Head of the KKK and Jean-Marie Le Penn giving Trump their backing

 

:rofl:

Trump also tweeting Mussolini quotes.

 

Folks seriously think this guy can win the Presidency, aye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  Bernie is about done.  Too bad.

 

Looks like it will be a Clinton v Trump race for President.  Whoda thunk it?

 

I wouldn't put a late Rubio surge into Super Tuesday out of the question.  There were what looked to be young Republicans out in the neighborhood canvassing this afternoon.  (I'm guessing they were Republicans because despite me sitting on the porch in the unseasonably warm weather they showed no interest in talking to me, as I clearly wasn't on their little sheets on their clipboards -- I suppose they could have been Bernie Bros and just not had us in the database.)   I can only assume that the Virginia GOP machine is cranking up to try to stop Trump.

 

The way the calendar is stacked, if Rubio did manage to outperform Trump on Tuesday, he could jump into the delegate lead very quickly, which would be quite a shake-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Mod delete.  This thread is about the American race for President.  Any talk about Justice Scalia's death is off topic.  Please stay on topic)

 

I will give you another example. You say that some Republicans will abstain or vote democrat because of Trump while purposely omitting the part of my post that points out (as others have on this thread) that some democrats are so sick of the old boys act, they are considering abstaining or voting for Trump if it comes down to him or Clinton.

 

I have no leanings towards any candidate (ok, maybe Sanders), do you (that is a rhetorical question).

 

If you do not like or agree with what I say you could at least debate it (are you capable of that) as apposed to sidestepping and/or purposely misleading threw omission and then throwing insults. 

 

I will be posting on this thread again.

 

Yours

 

Someone that doesn't button up the back.

 

You're a weird guy.

 

I didn't "purposely" (sic) omit any part of your post - I hardly read your post. All I saw was some conspiracy nonsense about Scalia's death. My point about Republicans voting for Clinton was in response to Greenbank2. I think that was pretty clear.

 

Do I have a preference? Yes, I want Sanders to win. I went to one of his Minnesotan rallies and was actually pretty inspired by him. I think he can bring the US into the 21st century on issues like healthcare and parental leave. And, of course, his bugbear, the corrupt campaign finance system.

 

Can he win? It's going to be very difficult, but he's not done yet. He's raised twice the amount of money that Clinton has (which is mindblowing), he's doing well in a lot of Super Tuesday states and he continues to poll better than Clinton in theoretical general election match-ups with Trump, Cruz and Rubio.

 

And I threw a (fairly tame) insult at you because you tend to derail reasonably interesting threads with whackjob, attention-seeking  posts. If you're going to continue to do so, as you state above, well there's not much I can do about that. It's a bizarre habit, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the polls and Nate Silver, it's going to take a miracle to stop Trump winning most States on Super Tuesday.

 

Hillary v Trump is virtually certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.T.F.Robertson

If Sanders were to somehow gain the White House, it would pretty much put Obama's win in the shade. I just cannot see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the polls and Nate Silver, it's going to take a miracle to stop Trump winning most States on Super Tuesday.

 

Hillary v Trump is virtually certain.

That's the way it's going to be.

 

And the winner will be the one that the American voters dislike the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

niblick1874

No matter what happens, there is going to be a very large amount of very angry Americans way beyond anything that has been seen in resent times. This is going to get very messy. Not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone

No matter what happens, there is going to be a very large amount of very angry Americans way beyond anything that has been seen in resent times. This is going to get very messy. Not good.

 

No it isn't. That's just a vague, pointless term people use.

 

What exactly is going to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minnesota was the only state where Tweedledum and Tweedledee didn't win on the Republican side on Tuesday. And Bernie gave Hillary a good thwacking here too. The Asterix's village of American politics!

 

I propose changing the state's nickname from "Land of 10,000 lakes" to "The place where fewer crazy people live".

 

12794513_10156637742545192_3293039435117

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sawdust Caesar

MSN had a story this morning that there has been a surge in people googling "how to move to Canada" since Trump's latest victories. Apparently it is the biggest increase for this search since Bush Junior became president

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the way it's going to be.

 

And the winner will be the one that the American voters dislike the least.

mirroring what happens here then, England/Scotland their all a bag o sheite, its pick least crappest. politics the world over is falling on its erse, had its day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

It's not much of a choice Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. That's like choosing tripe or liver for your tea. Both taste revolting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The inevitable end result for 30 years of dumbing down means that a blatant fascist like Trump appeals to the vast legions of the dim witted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eldar Hadzimehmedovic

The inevitable end result for 30 years of dumbing down means that a blatant fascist like Trump appeals to the vast legions of the dim witted.

Bingo. Right-wing politicians have widened divisions, increased partisanship and preyed on the fears and prejudices of the uneducated in order to exploit them for their votes, their cheap labour and their consumption. No good moaning about it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo. Right-wing politicians have widened divisions, increased partisanship and preyed on the fears and prejudices of the uneducated in order to exploit them for their votes, their cheap labour and their consumption. No good moaning about it now.

Rubio has finally discovered far too late that the only way to get attention in the media is to return Trump's childish remarks.

 

That says a lot more about the US media than it does about Rubio...

 

Happy to give Trump all the air time at the expense of all the other candidates then report on his rise as if it's not entirely of their own doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

Rubio has finally discovered far too late that the only way to get attention in the media is to return Trump's childish remarks.

 

That says a lot more about the US media than it does about Rubio...

 

Happy to give Trump all the air time at the expense of all the other candidates then report on his rise as if it's not entirely of their own doing.

 

This is not entirely accurate.  Fox News has been pushing Rubio as the anti-Trump for months, which is really ironic considering that Trump has basically gotten where he is by taking the Fox News fearmongering and implication schtick one step further.  

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-ailes-fox-news-finished-rubio

 

Which is a perfect illustration of how we got to this point.  The Republican party and its conservative media allies were perfectly happy to push the xenophobia and race baiting and anti-lliberal schtick, so long as it elected the "right people" who would kowtow to the plutocrats.  With Trump, the controlled burn got out of control and now they can't get hold of the mob they've whipped into a frenzy for 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The inevitable end result for 30 years of dumbing down means that a blatant fascist like Trump appeals to the vast legions of the dim witted.

its not that he's appealing, he might be absolutely shit but he's the best shit they've been offered. the party's pick a candidate, they dont need him to be an outstanding politician he just needs to win a vote. as the party picks all the candidates your basically being offered little choice in regards quality. once the candidates picked its dems v reps for the whitehouse and thats a (we always vote ****) and its only a minority that has to be swayed one way or other. if the climate is a radical mood then you pick a radical candidate to appeal to that group along with your regular vote its a job done, if its a liberal mood, you pick a liberal candidate etc, whatever gets the job done. the leader position is more symbolic, its the party that runs the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

I was once told the one with the most money generally gets the keys to the Whitehouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was once told the one with the most money generally gets the keys to the White house.

That's generally true.  In recent elections, it's the one with the richest financial backers who is most likely to win.

 

And that could be why the Republican establishment is so upset about the possibility of Trump winning the nomination.  He hasn't been accepting donations from people like the Koch brothers, so if he becomes President, Trump will not be beholding to any of them.  They (the background billionaires) will not have any influence on the President, like they had over George Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no

OK I get why Trump shouldn't / won't become President, its pretty clear he's unhinged.

 

What I don't get as a complete outsider is what is so wrong with Clinton? What is so bad about her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

OK I get why Trump shouldn't / won't become President, its pretty clear he's unhinged.

 

What I don't get as a complete outsider is what is so wrong with Clinton? What is so bad about her?

Trust me she's more unhinged than Trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I get why Trump shouldn't / won't become President, its pretty clear he's unhinged.

 

What I don't get as a complete outsider is what is so wrong with Clinton? What is so bad about her?

A lot of it is down to her husband obviously...

 

They are both popular with black voters despite I'm bringing out some seriously bad policies that severely affected black people like three strikes and you are out.

 

A lot of people reckon that he bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to deflect attention away from the Lewinski scandal... There's a lot of evidence to suggest it was simply that and not a bomb making factory as was suggested.

 

Democrats don't like her because she's beholden to Wall Street.

 

Republicans hate her because she will be as liberal as Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

niblick1874

A lot of it is down to her husband obviously...

 

They are both popular with black voters despite I'm bringing out some seriously bad policies that severely affected black people like three strikes and you are out.

 

A lot of people reckon that he bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to deflect attention away from the Lewinski scandal... There's a lot of evidence to suggest it was simply that and not a bomb making factory as was suggested.

 

 

You're getting there, but as I have pointed out, there's one more step. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCIrIQJ2bfg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

In what way?

Husband is a serial shagger. Gets caught with his penis in the mouth of young intern and she still stays married to him. That's unhinged to me. Lots more but would get automatic rsi if I kept on typing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

niblick1874

That's generally true.  In recent elections, it's the one with the richest financial backers who is most likely to win.

 

And that could be why the Republican establishment is so upset about the possibility of Trump winning the nomination.  He hasn't been accepting donations from people like the Koch brothers, so if he becomes President, Trump will not be beholding to any of them.  They (the background billionaires) will not have any influence on the President, like they had over George Bush.

The Koch brothers, and many others, are throwing the kitchen sink at it now and unlike most times, it is not subtle. For me, the amount of attention the backers are getting this time is one of the big differences in this election. People are beginning to sit up and take notice and they are not liking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Husband is a serial shagger. Gets caught with his penis in the mouth of young intern and she still stays married to him. That's unhinged to me. Lots more but would get automatic rsi if I kept on typing

Aye coz a sexual fling is a worse crime then being a fascist demagogue?

 

:cornette:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

Aye coz a sexual fling is a worse crime then being a fascist demagogue?

 

:cornette:

Trump is not a fascist demagogue. He's found a niche in the market and is milking it for all its worth. Hillary becomes the madam president I only see major trouble ahead for the USA. My hunch is Trump would be less hassle. My preference is for neither to win. When you have the largest un-educated English speaking (sort of) electorate in the world. What do you expect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

niblick1874

Aye coz a sexual fling is a worse crime then being a fascist demagogue?

 

:cornette:

Read to the end of his post, then go looking for what he is alluding to, then post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood

Husband is a serial shagger. Gets caught with his penis in the mouth of young intern and she still stays married to him. That's unhinged to me. Lots more but would get automatic rsi if I kept on typing

Is that all?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read to the end of his post, then go looking for what he is alluding to, then post. 

 

 

OK, I'll bite. I read to the end of his post and he is alluding to repetitive strain injury. I don't think even you can blame the Clintons for that.

 

On a more/less serious note, I watched the video that you linked to in your reply to a previous post regarding Chinagate. If you think that the Clintons were solely responsible for what went on there then you are deluded. The USA (not Clinton but the USA) obviously wanted something from China and authorised the deal, if indeed there was a deal. If there was a deal, the USA were maybe just looking for better relations with China to nullify any perceived threat from them while they carried out the spread of their style of "Democracy" throughout the Middle East.

 

Now, I'm not for one minute saying the above scenario is factual but, considering where China are now, it is way more plausible than suggesting the Clintons are commies who are only in it to pave the way for China to take over the White House, the USA, The WORLD! Which seems to be the path you are trying to take.

 

I mean, think about it for a while. For secrets of the calibre spoken of in the video to get to China all of the USA intelligence agencies, the USA military and the USA Government (I mean all sides of USA Government, right, left and centre) would have to be in on this. Now, they couldn't make it too obvious as at the time China were still being painted as seriously bad by the West, hence the need for the "money laundering" mentioned in the video to try and keep it secret. The more I think about it it was probably just cash the USA needed to continue their bombing campaign and getting it from China in this way managed to kill two birds with one stone.

 

Anyway, whichever way I look at it I just can't see Bill & Hillary doing this on their own to try to bring down the USA. Even if it's them and a lot of rich pals they still don't have a hope in hell of doing this without the full backing of all security services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, whichever way I look at it I just can't see Bill & Hillary doing this on their own to try to bring down the USA. Even if it's them and a lot of rich pals they still don't have a hope in hell of doing this without the full backing of all security services.

 

Ah but you have the problem that conspiracy theorists ignore. Half of the ideas are about the ruling elite and how they run everything and presidents and PMs are just puppets. However there are also all the ideas about what presidents and PMs have done on their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mirroring what happens here then, England/Scotland their all a bag o sheite, its pick least crappest. politics the world over is falling on its erse, had its day

Speak for yourself, not the SNP's fault that the unionist parties don't have anyone to match Sturgeon 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...