Rab Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) Trump has won 37% of GOP primary voters I wonder what that translates to as a percentage of likely or eligible voters in a presidential election. I bet it's tiny. Edited March 17, 2016 by Rab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 If somehow they take the nomination away from him (in his supporters eyes) there are going to be an enormous amount of people that feel the whole point of them voting for him is nowhere on the horizon where Cruz is concerned. As I have said, I've got a bad feeling about this. What I am not getting on here is the realization that because of the things that the Democrats have done, as in, exactly what the Republicans would get up to (the TTP and the way it was done along with a whole host of other things). There are many that think that it is the last stand, last chance and it is not only the patriots, there is going to be a very large amount of Democrats that will not be able to holed their nose when faced with Clinton. It's not really "taking the nomination away from him" though as for the brokered convention to kick in he will not have achieved the number of delegates required 1236 (50% +1). If he gets that figure or more I don't think there is anything the GOP can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) I wonder what that translates to as a percentage of likely or eligible voters in a presidential election. I bet it's tiny. As I understand it it's around 10%. That doesn't mean that's what he'll get in the general, but it does mean that the "yuuge" support he's getting isn't some kind of majority groundswell. This table about percentage of primary voters won by nominee is perhaps the most relaxing thing i've seen: http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-15-primaries-ohio-florida-results-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-17215392 Primary percentage vote isn't destiny, but it does seem to correlate loosely with general election performance. And 37% is just below Walter Mondale in 1984 and ahead of only McGovern in 1974 1972. Both Mondale and McGovern managed to win only their home state plus DC in the general. Edited March 17, 2016 by Ugly American Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) Looks like Anonymous are not fecking about with their promise to target Trump .They are digging for dirt on the business tycoon and his online presence. Anonymous just made good on their declaration of war against Trump "Donald Trump has set his ambitions on the White House in order to promote an agenda of fascism and xenophobia as well as the religious persecution of Muslims through totalitarian policies," says the masked speaker in the video. "After targeting the Islamic State group and the Ku Klux Klan in 2015, the rogue hacker collective Anonymous declared "total war" on Republican Party frontrunner Donald Trump. Now,Anonymous is proving it's not messing around". http://mic.com/articles/138244/anonymous-just-made-good-on-its-war-against-donald-trump-in-one-massive-cyberattack?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social Edited March 18, 2016 by maroonlegions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Of The Cat Cafe Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 People laughed when they first heard that Donald Trump was running for the Republican Party nomination. They're not laughing now.* With apologies to Bob Monkhouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 It's not really "taking the nomination away from him" though as for the brokered convention to kick in he will not have achieved the number of delegates required 1236 (50% +1). If he gets that figure or more I don't think there is anything the GOP can do. I realize that, but as I say, it is going to come down to how they perceive it and already a lot are realizing that in fact it is not the people who decide who wins the nomination if it's not won outright. Has this ever happened before when the peoples choice was not the choice of the party and the party threatened to give the nomination to someone else? I'm seeing a lot of people on TV saying that it was always like that and there is nothing to see here, There's a surprise. It could all fizzle out but that's not the way I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 What's really laughable is that Mittens apparently sees himself as some sort of kingmaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Looks like Anonymous are not fecking about with their promise to target Trump .They are digging for dirt on the business tycoon and his online presence. Anonymous just made good on their declaration of war against Trump "Donald Trump has set his ambitions on the White House in order to promote an agenda of fascism and xenophobia as well as the religious persecution of Muslims through totalitarian policies," says the masked speaker in the video. "After targeting the Islamic State group and the Ku Klux Klan in 2015, the rogue hacker collective Anonymous declared "total war" on Republican Party frontrunner Donald Trump. Now,Anonymous is proving it's not messing around". http://mic.com/articles/138244/anonymous-just-made-good-on-its-war-against-donald-trump-in-one-massive-cyberattack?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social Shouldn't have to dig as deep when they turn their attention to the Democrat runner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Anonymous, are shitebags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Shouldn't have to dig as deep when they turn their attention to the Democrat runner. Yep, but it's what makes it to the MSM that counts. Mind you, going by what UM tells us they are really giving her a hard time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wibble Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Another Republican debate on the telly tonight. Yeah, i can't wait. I can't believe the number of badword debates so far. Telling everyone nothing but that doesn't matter, it's all about the exposure. FWIW, i'm liking Bernie more and more. I've always been more centrist in my political opinions so the republicans are just ridiculous to me and Hillary just does absolutely nothing for me in terms of leadership and political thinking. Funnily enough, i probably stand to lose more financially under Bernie but i like his approach. truth is, that if the wealth gap isn't adjusted in favor of the poor then you run the risk of losing everything in a class war.The American underclass are getting pretty riled and a reaction can be expected if something isn't done to address the constant attacks on the poor. Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Trump as President is worrisome, but I think that the checks and balances that are built into American government would stop him from doing anything daft. Cruz, on the other hand, has sworn to repeal Obamacare, dismantle the EPA, close down Planned Parenthood, protect the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms), and reaffirm the USA as a Christian nation. He would be the most conservative President ever, and with Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate, he could probably fulfill most of his promises. If I was an American, he would worry me more than Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) As expected Hillary Clinton looking like a very shady character, what a choice the American citizens have ,on the one hand they have Trump , the fascist ,homophobic meniac and Clinton, the sociopathic mad woman... lol; Hillary worked with Google CEOs to keep the Bengazhi video fro the public. Read email: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/16800#source Bengazhi Video Blocked from Public UNCLASSIFIED STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM. U.S. Department of State SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. WIKILEAKS.ORG Edited March 21, 2016 by maroonlegions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) I see Trump and the FBI fell right into a trap set up by Anonymous, in short they showed just how quick Trump and his leading core of supporters and the FBI were willing to go to get those responsible for the leaking of sensitive information that had be made available on line since 2013.. lol; In short it was a lesson on just how far Trump would go to censor anyone who shares a different view from him, in essence censorship of anyone against his racist and fascist views. This man should no be any where near the Whitehouse and this includes Clinton too, this election is a farce, it's all about manipulation and buying your way to the American presidency with mega bucks and clever media coverage of your campaign. Operation white rose exposed a sinister and shady side of Trump and the authorities. Do we want Trump or Clinton on the seat of the powerfulest nation on earth.. lets have a UK vote on that question. lol; United States ? Anonymous just pulled a fast one on Donald Trump, his campaign staff, the Secret Service, and the FBI ? in one brilliant and telling fell swoop. To support the White Rose Society and the White Rose revolt which began as a response to fascist leanings by Trump and his supporters, Anonymous launched #OpWhiteRose ? and the billionaire presidential hopeful fell right into the ?trap.? On Friday, Anonymous announced it had released Trump?s personal information online ? including such details as his cell phone number and Social Security number. Backlash from the Trump front promptly followed, as well as an announcement from the Secret Service and FBI that an investigation had begun. However, the information had not been hacked or leaked. In fact, everything Anonymous posted had been online ? and available for anyone to see ? for years. Anonymous RedCult released a second video to explain the ruse, in which the narrator explains the information ?was online since 2013.? Indeed, as the video states, ?The government and law enforcement authorities are seeking the arrest of the people responsible for attempting to illegally hack Mr. Trump?s accounts and telephone information.? Why law enforcement at every level was so quick to pounce on a non-crime and effect arrest of those behind it ? without investigating whether a crime had even been committed ? paints a telling portrait of exactly the fascist tendencies Anonymous wished to prove. RedCult included a snippet of ABC News coverage of the non-hack, which reports it as if it were a serious crime. Again, this information has ostensibly been available on the internet for years ? so, as the narrator points out, ?Trump want to turn America into a fascist dictatorship where anyone can be arrested for just posting old information online.? It?s arguably not far from the truth. Indeed, as Trump indiscriminately aims his hatred of the press, protesters, activists, and anyone who disagrees with his twisted vision for the future, Anonymous might have proven a crucial point. ?Thank you Trump and Trump campaign. Thank you police, FBI, and the Secret Service for being a part of our little experiment on how we should expect the so-called New America will be,? the narrator stated. Whatever your feelings about the collective known as Anonymous, the experiment was a frightening, facile ?success? ? of sorts. Though the joke was on Trump this time, it proves his fascist tendencies are nothing to joke about. Edited March 21, 2016 by maroonlegions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) Anonymous is a coward or are cowards. Edited March 21, 2016 by aussieh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Anonymous is a coward or are cowards. Who are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Who are they?Hackers who hide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Who are they?I see what you did there. Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Top trolling by Anonymous here. Did absolutely nothing other than post some tweets, managed to get the FBI and the Trump campaign wound up. Not always a fan of theirs, but that was quite a show they just put on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlimOzturk Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Donald Trump was just on Fox News and was asked about the attacks in Brussels and what he would do to protect America in a similar situation. His big idea was "Stop them coming into America in the first place" that's it, that's his plan. He went on to say that area's in Paris, London & Brussels were no go area's for the Police and sighted the fact that one of the Paris attackers was protected by his own community. He was then asked, if he was President, what he would do to try and gain the trust of the Muslim community, and to try and get them to report suspicious activities to the authorities. And his reply was! Nothing, I wouldn't gain their trust as we've done nothing wrong, it's they who need them to come forward and report their own people. He was asked at least 3 times to clarify what he would do if he was President but failed to give a satisfactory answer, in fact it was clear he didn't have a clue what to do, however was very quick to criticise European Intelligence and the current American government in their failings, but didn't have an answer of how to fix it, apart from not letting them into America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyw_1874 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Donald Trump was just on Fox News and was asked about the attacks in Brussels and what he would do to protect America in a similar situation. His big idea was "Stop them coming into America in the first place" that's it, that's his plan. He went on to say that area's in Paris, London & Brussels were no go area's for the Police and sighted the fact that one of the Paris attackers was protected by his own community. He was then asked, if he was President, what he would do to try and gain the trust of the Muslim community, and to try and get them to report suspicious activities to the authorities. And his reply was! Nothing, I wouldn't gain their trust as we've done nothing wrong, it's they who need them to come forward and report their own people. He was asked at least 3 times to clarify what he would do if he was President but failed to give a satisfactory answer, in fact it was clear he didn't have a clue what to do, however was very quick to criticise European Intelligence and the current American government in their failings, but didn't have an answer of how to fix it, apart from not letting them into America. To be fair to Trump in his mind he will see it as "well if they're not here they can't hurt us". Which is a much better idea than the usual Republican rhetoric of "turn the middle east into glass" or SHillarys enviable bomb them to hell policies. I feel for America picking between Trump and Hillary is like asking what kind of cancer do you want to kill you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Donald Trump was just on Fox News and was asked about the attacks in Brussels and what he would do to protect America in a similar situation. His big idea was "Stop them coming into America in the first place" that's it, that's his plan. He went on to say that area's in Paris, London & Brussels were no go area's for the Police and sighted the fact that one of the Paris attackers was protected by his own community. He was then asked, if he was President, what he would do to try and gain the trust of the Muslim community, and to try and get them to report suspicious activities to the authorities. And his reply was! Nothing, I wouldn't gain their trust as we've done nothing wrong, it's they who need them to come forward and report their own people. He was asked at least 3 times to clarify what he would do if he was President but failed to give a satisfactory answer, in fact it was clear he didn't have a clue what to do, however was very quick to criticise European Intelligence and the current American government in their failings, but didn't have an answer of how to fix it, apart from not letting them into America. I think the Brussels attacks will play right into Trump's anti-Muslim hand. "Keep Muslims out" is ridiculous and unworkable, but it will make better sense to the nervous masses than anything Cruz or Clinton have to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) I think the Brussels attacks will play right into Trump's anti-Muslim hand. "Keep Muslims out" is ridiculous and unworkable, but it will make better sense to the nervous masses than anything Cruz or Clinton have to say. I would agree, Trump will play on people's fears and already does so without saying what he'll actually do, all he says is that he'll fix it and then blames the current administration. By painting Europe as a disaster area, which he said it was today and then adds that do we want this kind of thing to happen in America on a regular basis like Europe? But it's ok as I'll fix it. Edited March 22, 2016 by Jambo-Jimbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvisisgod Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I think the Brussels attacks will play right into Trump's anti-Muslim hand. "Keep Muslims out" is ridiculous and unworkable, but it will make better sense to the nervous masses than anything Cruz or Clinton have to say. Thats just it, this will keep his momentum going for another period with his fans but hopefully he'll dig himself a bigger hole with more sensible folk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Thats just it, this will keep his momentum going for another period with his fans but hopefully he'll dig himself a bigger hole with more sensible folk When he was pressed by Fox News today, he didn't have an answer apart from 'I'll fix it' and 'Close the Borders' and 'Stop them coming to America', that sort of rhetoric is great for some of the hard line nut jobs, but normal sensible folks will want better answers than this, they'll want real plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Trump l'oeil -- a candidate that projects the illusion of depth, but who is actually a two-dimensional buffoon: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-most-baffling-moments-from-donald-trumps-washington-post-ed-board-interview/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 No matter how well one perceives that your past histories will either be forgotten or guarded by secrecy that past never the less has a natural tenancy to rear its ugly head a bite ones arse. lol . Wikileaks Drops Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It; http://anonhq.com/wikileaks-drops-hillary-email-bomb-end-campaign-fb-censored/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Yawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 So Americans are faced with two utter nasty individuals in Clinton and Trump. Clinton is one particular sociopath and war monger and one who will stop at nothing to get her way. Her e-mail history leaked by Wikileaks is one scary reading and reveals an individual who is clearer unstable and cold as feck. Hillary Clinton Email Archive;On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) Yawn. Taking a interest in the past skulduggery"s of those individuals who are in potential positions of power in the most powerful nation on earth can get tiring ... Damn that Wikileaks, pesky blighters , spoiling a clever sophisticated political debate on the political satires of two of the most nasty American presidential candidates to date.. Waver their political ambitions and they are clearly unstable. Edited March 25, 2016 by maroonlegions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 No matter how well one perceives that your past histories will either be forgotten or guarded by secrecy that past never the less has a natural tenancy to rear its ugly head a bite ones arse. lol . Wikileaks Drops Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It; http://anonhq.com/wikileaks-drops-hillary-email-bomb-end-campaign-fb-censored/ And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Vote for me because I am here to stand up for woman's rights around the world? You're having a ******* laugh. Ask the then twelve year old girl that was raped and left in a coma what she thinks of her and the way she lied and then laughed about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QnmilCVzdw How any Democrat can be fooled by her when all they have to do is look at her backers and see the contradictions in all she says is beyond me. How can she say that she is against the TTP when the very people that put it together in secret are backing her to the hilt? Where is the MSM if not in the pockets of her backers? Anyone with a computer can find out about the real monster that is Hillary Clinton. There are a lot of Americans that are realizing they have no choice other than the devil or the deep blue sea and those that have not realized this are becoming more and more polarized between Clinton and Trump. Not good, something has to give and when it does it won't be pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Taking a interest in the past skulduggery"s of those individuals who are in potential positions of power in the most powerful nation on earth can get tiring ... Damn that Wikileaks, pesky blighters , spoiling a clever sophisticated political debate on the political satires of two of the most nasty American presidential candidates to date.. Waver their political ambitions and they are clearly unstable. Not to be jaded, but people who haven't been paying attention suddenly get a hold of of some little bit of gossip and act like it changes everything. Oh, the US state department is knotted up at the nexus of the military industrial complex and serving the purposes of private capital while using the cover of humanitarian missions to flex its military power and enrich private individuals? Knock me over with a feather. Yeah, that's totally news... in 1972. Clinton certainly didn't get rid of that culture at State while she was there, but she threw out the unreconstructed neocons and established a culture of responsive, professional competence. Yes, she's far more militaristic and interventionist than I'd like, but I didn't need wikileaks to tell me that. So forgive me if my response to these "revelations" is to yawn. We have a protofascist bully to stop, and now I have my home state gone absolutely insane over TOILETS to worry about. But enjoy catching up on the news.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Also, if you think Trump and Clinton are "two of the most nasty presidential candidates to date," I would like to be the first to welcome you to your newfound study of my country's history. Trump might make the top 10. Might. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Yawn. What? No conspiracy theory insults this time to try and deflect? What's the matter, is there to much coming out about Clinton for you to paper over the crack's. Are they becoming to cavernous for you to cover up? Are you still hoping that it all goes away? It won't. At best you are sticking your fingers in your ears and screwing your eyes shut. At worst, you know all about it and are trying to mislead. Ether way, your credibility is shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Also, if you think Trump and Clinton are "two of the most nasty presidential candidates to date," I would like to be the first to welcome you to your newfound study of my country's history. Trump might make the top 10. Might.Not forgetting that nutjob Alex Jones wants a Trump win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 What? No conspiracy theory insults this time to try and deflect? What's the matter, is there to much coming out about Clinton for you to paper over the crack's. Are they becoming to cavernous for you to cover up? Are you still hoping that it all goes away? It won't. At best you are sticking your fingers in your ears and screwing your eyes shut. At worst, you know all about it and are trying to mislead. Ether way, your credibility is shot. Read my next response and reply to that if you care to. I should be less insulting, it's true. However I get rather annoyed at people rehashing old information and pretending like it's groundbreaking, particularly when they're simultaneously ignoring actual threats to Democracy because they aren't as cloak-and-daggery and sexy and arousing with mystery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sraman Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Democracies dead baby, democracies dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rab Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Yawn. Just ignore it mate, it's better when this thread stays away from the conspiracy theories, replying just gives them attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Democracies dead baby, democracies dead.Its the biggest myth known to man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Follow the money and oil trail , therein lies the corruption and those who have their hands in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Follow the money and oil trail , therein lies the corruption and those who have their hands in it. Clinton going to reveal all the secrets of area 51.Nibs and yourself will be all for Clinton now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted March 26, 2016 Author Share Posted March 26, 2016 What? No conspiracy theory insults this time to try and deflect? What's the matter, is there to much coming out about Clinton for you to paper over the crack's. Are they becoming to cavernous for you to cover up? Are you still hoping that it all goes away? It won't. At best you are sticking your fingers in your ears and screwing your eyes shut. At worst, you know all about it and are trying to mislead. Ether way, your credibility is shot. Clinton or Trump? Sanders, won't take the nomination, so the choice is Clinton or Trump. Or Cruz. Out of those on offer who can win, Clinton is the best hope for America. She's an "establishment" candidate, but she's preferable to Trump. Trump is clearly unhinged and I'd hate global issues of peace and security being invested in him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Its the biggest myth known to man. Democracy isn't a system of government. (The US is a republic with some democratic principles instilled in it.) Democracy is an ideal and a process. There's no such thing as a true pure democracy, but governments are more or less democratic depending on how they're run. And if you think that's a myth, we probably don't have much to talk about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Democracy isn't a system of government. (The US is a republic with some democratic principles instilled in it.) Democracy is an ideal and a process. There's no such thing as a true pure democracy, but governments are more or less democratic depending on how they're run. And if you think that's a myth, we probably don't have much to talk about. Money buys you power, influence and stature.Could you run for president?, could I run for PM?. No because we couldn't buy the exposure. We may all have a vote, but we're all influenced by the media, who are king makers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Exactly this. Trump has won 37% of GOP primary voters and has yet to win 50% in any single state (he came very close in Massachusetts). His overall polling percentage has only gone up from about 35% to about 40% even as the GOP field winnowed from some 15 down to three. And there's a good 40% of the GOP that's dead set against him being the nominee at all costs. Romney seems an unlikely pick -- I'd expect Kasich or Scott Walker if that happened. But at this point, nobody has seen anything like this ever before. For political junkies (and Democrats like me for that matter), the GOP convention could end up being unmissable drama. For some of my friends who are moderate Republicans, this is all a horrible nightmare. can I ask you, why is only Republicans and Democrats when it comes to elections?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Money buys you power, influence and stature. Could you run for president?, could I run for PM?. No because we couldn't buy the exposure. We may all have a vote, but we're all influenced by the media, who are king makers. You're disagreeing with a point I didn't make. Democracy is the ideal of systematic popular influence on politics. Democracy is also the set of techniques and processes of carrying out that process. It doesn't mean perfect equality of opportunity. The notion that the people freely pick the best candidate at all times is a total myth, of course, but that's not what democracy is. can I ask you, why is only Republicans and Democrats when it comes to elections?. The short answer involves the division of powers between the branches of government in the US and the houses of Congress. To a majority coalition that allows anyone to create policy across the branches, you have to have representations in all the branches, and that means a bare minimum of 25 states in the Senate and 200+ House districts. Plus, because of devolution to the states, every national party needs state party allies to do anything, and vice versa. To see how it works without parties, the case of Jesse "The Body" Ventura is particularly useful (and entertaining). Best known of course as a professional wrestler and supporting actor in Predator, he got elected Governor of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket (the remnants of Ross Perot's movement). With almost no campaign budget, and promising legalization of marijuana, decriminalization of prostitution, and a balanced budget among other things, and campaigning using gimmicks such as selling Jesse "The Body Politick" Ventura talking action figures, Ventura split the Democratic and Republican votes and truly shocked the political world. In his four years as governor, after promising to "take the best ideas from both parties," he perpetually squabbled with both parties the state legislature, failing to get any meaningful policy proposal through, and with his proposed budgets tabled and largely ignored. Enervated by the whole experience, he declined to run for re-election. The Reform Party effectively reached its peak with Ventura, declining fairly rapidly afterwards and dwindled to irrelevance. Looking at it another way, on policy grounds, there's little difference between the Sanders candidacy of 2016 and the Nader candidacy of 2000 and 2004. Nader also ran on effectively a return to Keynesian and labor-centric politics that the Democratic party downplayed under President Clinton, decrying both parties as tools of neoliberalism. However, Nader tactically ran with the nomination of the US Green Party in what was effectively a spoiler campaign to try to force Al Gore to move left, and instead pretty directly contributed to the election of President Bush. Sanders, on the other hand, has pitched his fight as an "inside the tent" fight, holding his criticism of Sec. Clinton to specific policy issues, and has already signaled that he will endorse and campaign for Clinton in the general election. Nader is (IMO quite rightly) a political pariah at this point. Sanders has already received more votes nationally in the primary than Nader did in the general, and will enter the national convention with a massive number of delegates and be in the catbird's seat when it comes to negotiating cabinet positions, platform planks, or future activism roles. In short, Sanders has done far more to move US politics to the left than Nader ever did, and it's because he stayed inside the Democratic coalition instead of running against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Beale Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 You're disagreeing with a point I didn't make. Democracy is the ideal of systematic popular influence on politics. Democracy is also the set of techniques and processes of carrying out that process. It doesn't mean perfect equality of opportunity. The notion that the people freely pick the best candidate at all times is a total myth, of course, but that's not what democracy is. The short answer involves the division of powers between the branches of government in the US and the houses of Congress. To a majority coalition that allows anyone to create policy across the branches, you have to have representations in all the branches, and that means a bare minimum of 25 states in the Senate and 200+ House districts. Plus, because of devolution to the states, every national party needs state party allies to do anything, and vice versa. To see how it works without parties, the case of Jesse "The Body" Ventura is particularly useful (and entertaining). Best known of course as a professional wrestler and supporting actor in Predator, he got elected Governor of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket (the remnants of Ross Perot's movement). With almost no campaign budget, and promising legalization of marijuana, decriminalization of prostitution, and a balanced budget among other things, and campaigning using gimmicks such as selling Jesse "The Body Politick" Ventura talking action figures, Ventura split the Democratic and Republican votes and truly shocked the political world. In his four years as governor, after promising to "take the best ideas from both parties," he perpetually squabbled with both parties the state legislature, failing to get any meaningful policy proposal through, and with his proposed budgets tabled and largely ignored. Enervated by the whole experience, he declined to run for re-election. The Reform Party effectively reached its peak with Ventura, declining fairly rapidly afterwards and dwindled to irrelevance. Looking at it another way, on policy grounds, there's little difference between the Sanders candidacy of 2016 and the Nader candidacy of 2000 and 2004. Nader also ran on effectively a return to Keynesian and labor-centric politics that the Democratic party downplayed under President Clinton, decrying both parties as tools of neoliberalism. However, Nader tactically ran with the nomination of the US Green Party in what was effectively a spoiler campaign to try to force Al Gore to move left, and instead pretty directly contributed to the election of President Bush. Sanders, on the other hand, has pitched his fight as an "inside the tent" fight, holding his criticism of Sec. Clinton to specific policy issues, and has already signaled that he will endorse and campaign for Clinton in the general election. Nader is (IMO quite rightly) a political pariah at this point. Sanders has already received more votes nationally in the primary than Nader did in the general, and will enter the national convention with a massive number of delegates and be in the catbird's seat when it comes to negotiating cabinet positions, platform planks, or future activism roles. In short, Sanders has done far more to move US politics to the left than Nader ever did, and it's because he stayed inside the Democratic coalition instead of running against it. There's a certain 2 posters who Ventura would get on well with . Going off topic but Ventura showed a lack of class with the Chris Kyle episode . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Money buys you power, influence and stature. Could you run for president?, could I run for PM?. No because we couldn't buy the exposure. We may all have a vote, but we're all influenced by the media, who are king makers. Bang on the cash, Aussie. Can mega bucks also buy you manipulation and spin of lies or manipulation of them in election campaigns?? See Hillary Clinton is no stranger to the odd bullshoite lie . Watch Hillary Clinton Continuously Mislead the Public for 13 Minutes Straight Hillary Clinton has a truth problem, and on the eve of the Iowa caucus, it?s important to know where the candidates stand (or? ANONHQ.COM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) I have a feeling that Trump is only there to ensure there's no credible opposition to ShillaryJust a feeling though Edited March 27, 2016 by Stephen Muddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.