2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:01 am UTC

Okay. In the meantime, some character witnesses. Bob Shrum, a prominent adviser to Gore's presidential campaign and others, wrote this in his memoirs:

Michael Whouley came up with a last-ditch scheme: Send Gore into areas of southern New Hampshire where there was a lot of Bradley support among upscale voters and commuters who worked across the border in Massachusetts. Many of them cast their ballots late in the day after driving home. Gore's motorcade -- candidate, press, Secret Service, and police -- could snarl traffic and keep some of the commuters from ever getting to their polling places or even trying to. We were perpared to try anything. But we didn't share the rationale with Gore; we just sent him on his way.

And guess what? Michael Whouley has been active with Bill on the campaign trail this season. They have literally done this before. Oh, but I'm sure it's just baseless, unsubstantiated claims this time.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:08 am UTC

CNBC: Virginia is too close to call between Trump and Rubio. Trump wins Georgia.

Image

Considering that the polls were 10 states for Trump and Texas for Cruz, anything close is to Rubio's benefit.

They have literally done this before. Oh, but I'm sure it's just baseless, unsubstantiated claims this time.


I really don't care. If there's an issue, reports will come in eventually. I don't wish to participate with the online hyperventilating hourly-news when it comes to a serious charge like "Election Fraud". When real evidence comes in, then I'm going to be more than willing to discuss the issue.

I'm not necessarily calling you right or wrong on the matter. I'm simply saying that I'm explicitly waiting for more evidence before forming an opinion. I'm registered Republican for crying out loud, I see this as a Democrat issue for the most part.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:23 am UTC

Oh, and here's Google Maps to show us exactly where Bill was standing in New Bedford: that parking lot is approximately 50 feet from the entrance to the polling place. And he was giving a campaign speech there, with a megaphone, after he had been warned of the 150 feet rule in Boston.

I'm registered Republican for crying out loud, I see this as a Democrat issue for the most part.

I know. And there was a time when I would have been incredibly reluctant to air my party's dirty laundry like this where it could advantage the other side. But I'm so damn sick of the Clintons now that I no longer care.
Exit the vampires' castle.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:59 am UTC

Lazar wrote:Active voter suppression on the part of a former president of the United States is shameful and unforgivable. I don't care about the uploader's level of political engagement, I care about the truth of what he and others are alleging.

I care myself. However given no other data than the video and the post the only way I have to judge the poster is by his words. I found two sources, a Boston news outlet and the NYT and neither said much about it. And where Bill goes the press follows. He also has a Secret Service contingent. Election chicanery happens outside the glare of the spotlight. And no one man, even Bill, can be in enough places over the course of the day to change the outcome.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:01 am UTC

And where Bill goes the press follows. He also has a Secret Service contingent. Election chicanery happens outside the glare of the spotlight.

Well, as I said above, Bob Shrum has admitted that the Gore campaign used this very tactic against Bradley in the 2000 primaries. This isn't some fringe idea; it's a real thing that happened, and the guy who did it is campaigning with Bill right now.

However given no other data than the video and the post the only way I have to judge the poster is by his words. I found two sources, a Boston news outlet and the NYT and neither said much about it.

I've seen a number of corroborating accounts on Reddit in the past couple hours (make of that what you will), but as yet none that have been verified by the media. One example:

As a Massachusetts voter, this is simply appalling.
Friends in New Bedford called to tell me about this, wicked pissed that they were completely blocked from voting as they only had a short window away from work (construction workers who used their lunch break to vote). Unfortunately they won't be able to vote after work due to having to pick up the kids from day care, get them home, feed them, etc.
Bernie Sanders just lost at least 3 votes from the guys in that crew, and I'd wager that this is reflective of other locals who were unable to vote. New Bedford is a working class community and MANY in that area were likely Sanders supporters.
Everyone here in Mass knows that you aren't allowed to stump anywhere near a polling location.
The fact that Marty Walsh (mayor of Boston) and the Mayor of New Bedford who are both Clinton supporters not only allowed, but assisted in this speaks volumes of the level of corruption all the way up, and all the way down.

It's unlikely that something as small as this could swing the election, but if you bear in mind the ridiculously close margin by which Florida was decided in 2000, it's not outside the realm of possibility. If Bernie loses by a few hundred votes here, I'm grabbing my pitchfork.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6345
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:45 am UTC

Lazar, you do realize that if Bernie loses 1 state by a few hundred votes, he'll be losing by 1100 instead of 1000? It's not much of a difference. Hillary doesn't need to cheat, she's winning on fundamentals. Old people>young people cuz that's how they vote.

PS: We all know Trump is gonna win super Tuesday, we just need to know by how much. If he squeaks by, then the establishment can stop him. If he sweeps it, or worse 4 different people win states, then we're gonna have to cheat to kick Trump out. Am I telling you to throw an election? Yes, do it. For the greater good.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:55 am UTC

Perhaps, but I think Massachusetts is the one state that Sanders has to win tonight if he's going to maintain even a slight hope of keeping his campaign alive – so the Clintons would have an especial interest in making sure he loses here.

As for the Republicans – Texas is going for Cruz, and Arkansas and Oklahoma still look competitive, but Trump seems to be sweeping everything else. Notably he's managed a narrow win in Virginia, which could have been a lifesaver for Rubio.
Last edited by Lazar on Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:08 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:08 am UTC

He may even get Oklahoma, but he won't get the nomination. What his race does is get him a seat at the table.
sardia wrote:PS: We all know Trump is gonna win super Tuesday, we just need to know by how much. If he squeaks by, then the establishment can stop him. If he sweeps it, or worse 4 different people win states, then we're gonna have to cheat to kick Trump out. Am I telling you to throw an election? Yes, do it. For the greater good.
As a Democrat I want this to go to the wall, in as ugly a manner as is possible. The longer it goes on the longer Clinton has a chance to consolidate without having to beat off the Republican candidate, let the Republicans eat each other. The real race has a prospect of being ugly, real scorched earth.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:18 am UTC

Call me crazy, but I think he's gonna get it. Either that, or we'll legitimately witness the self-destruction of the GOP.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:30 am UTC

I think he will too. I think a lot of people underestimate his support in the winner-take-all states and just assume Rubio has a clear path to victory there. I think Trump will take a clear majority of those delegates.

EDIT: Looks like Rubio missed the 20% he needed to get any delegates in Texas (at least state level, he might still get some district level). He probably would have got them had Kasich dropped out. There's a good chance that it will still be a three person race after this, with Rubio way behind Cruz, which will make it a lot easier for Trump to win. I doubt Rubio will drop out, but either way I think Trump has a pretty huge advantage.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6345
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:36 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I think he will too. I think a lot of people underestimate his support in the winner-take-all states and just assume Rubio has a clear path to victory there. I think Trump will take a clear majority of those delegates.

EDIT: Looks like Rubio missed the 20% he needed to get any delegates in Texas (at least state level, he might still get some district level). He probably would have got them had Kasich dropped out. There's a good chance that it will still be a three person race after this, with Rubio way behind Cruz, which will make it a lot easier for Trump to win. I doubt Rubio will drop out, but either way I think Trump has a pretty huge advantage.

The GOP voters aren't playing nice like we want them to. It should be Cruz suffering, and Rubio rising, not this mixed signals crap.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:41 am UTC

I'm expecting that in 2020, the Republicans will have a new set of election rules designed to give the establishment an advantage and prevent this from happening again after Trump loses to Hillary.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6345
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:51 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I'm expecting that in 2020, the Republicans will have a new set of election rules designed to give the establishment an advantage and prevent this from happening again after Trump loses to Hillary.

They did that in the aftermath of 2012 and 2014 elections. The idea was to shorten the election cycle, which is why all these states have weird rules like 20% cutoffs and semiproportionality. What the GOP really needs to do is have super-delegates, which is literally the party saying me and all my establishment friends have an equal vote to the entire country. It's what the Democrats have, and it works fine. The only downside is people get mad if the super-delegates are too far out of whack from the populace.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:15 am UTC

They do, just not enough; only three per state.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6345
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:49 am UTC

Back-Of-The-Envelope Delegate Projections: Tonight Sucks For Rubio
DAVID_WASSERMAN

Here are my back-of-the-envelope delegate projections: Based on current vote counts and each state and district’s allocation rules, Trump is on track to end up with about 262 delegates, Cruz is on track to win about 215, and Rubio is on track to win about 93. That’s an even more awful result for Rubio than I thought, and it’s a lot worse for Rubio than The New York Times’s Upshot model is currently projecting. After tonight, Rubio could be more than 100 delegates behind Cruz and more than 200 delegates behind Trump.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... e-targets/
It's such a shame, Rubio is the total package, really conservative but sounds really nice + classic GOP rags to riches upbringing. The only problem as Morriswaters puts it "he's a loser!".
Keep track of their target numbers as time passes. Remember, that different candidates(and their voting blocs) have different tracks because the country isn't uniformly divided. Even so, Rubio is pretty setback. Even Cruz, who was a dead man walking himself last night, is calling on him to get out.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:04 am UTC

So according to that, Trump needed 225 today, so if those figures are accurate he is 37 points above target, and was already 10 above target from prior races. It gives him a lot of wiggle room.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:26 am UTC

Which would cause greater harm to the Republican Party - nominating Trump (against many outspoken voices within party/conservatism), or refusing to nominate Trump if he wins a majority of delegates? Both would be terrible, one will probably happen at this point.

Any chance Bloomberg will still run as an independent?
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6345
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:58 am UTC

duckshirt wrote:Which would cause greater harm to the Republican Party - nominating Trump (against many outspoken voices within party/conservatism), or refusing to nominate Trump if he wins a majority of delegates? Both would be terrible, one will probably happen at this point.

Any chance Bloomberg will still run as an independent?

The harm to the GOP brand? nominating Trump is far worse, and they should just cheat to kick him out. Take one for the team, and throw the election. The GOP can try again in 2020, plus they get to win back during the 2018 mid terms. The big takeaway here is that purely listening to your primary voters is a TERRIBLE idea. A good establishment candidate should listen to their voters concerns, not blindly follow them.*
What is with your focus with Bloomberg? You want less candidates, not more. If you really cared, just nominate Romney or Jeb again. Equally foolish, but actual Republicans.

*Don't believe me? You gonna listen to the racists to kick out the black gay muslism transgender terrorist? Cuz that's what the GOP primary voters want. There's a reason the establishment ignores them.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:03 am UTC

If Trump had a majority in the popular vote it would be one thing, but you can argue that the only reason he is winning is due to vote splitting and the existing primary rules. Rubio has a somewhat higher approval rating and Trump has a much larger disapproval voting. I doubt most Republicans would be that upset.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:23 am UTC

Thesh wrote:If Trump had a majority in the popular vote it would be one thing, but you can argue that the only reason he is winning is due to vote splitting and the existing primary rules. Rubio has a somewhat higher approval rating and Trump has a much larger disapproval voting. I doubt most Republicans would be that upset.

Aye. It seems to me that the critical thing here is going to be second choice preferences. Surely either Rubio or Cruz is going to drop out some time before the end, and whoever does so is going to pledge support to the other..? My understanding is that their delegates will then follow that recommendation?

Of course, that means whoever drops out is in effect a Kingmaker - as they could cut a deal with Trump for the VP position, say - and then throw their lot in with him. However it seems to me that the war of words just turned too nasty leading up to Super Tuesday for that to be plausible. Then again, candidates seem to be able to u-turn on a dime and the polls don't seem to bat an eyelid...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:41 am UTC

I wouldn't be so certain either Cruz or Rubio will drop out at this point. If Rubio was ahead of Cruz it would be one thing, but Rubio is the establishment candidate and Cruz is in second place. Also, delegate re-allocation rules vary by state, so it would take a bit of effort to determine how exactly delegates would be reallocated, and even then it will be fuzzy as some are free to vote for whoever they want.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:59 am UTC

Lazar wrote:Okay. In the meantime, some character witnesses. Bob Shrum, a prominent adviser to Gore's presidential campaign and others, wrote this in his memoirs:

Michael Whouley came up with a last-ditch scheme: Send Gore into areas of southern New Hampshire where there was a lot of Bradley support among upscale voters and commuters who worked across the border in Massachusetts. Many of them cast their ballots late in the day after driving home. Gore's motorcade -- candidate, press, Secret Service, and police -- could snarl traffic and keep some of the commuters from ever getting to their polling places or even trying to. We were perpared to try anything. But we didn't share the rationale with Gore; we just sent him on his way.

And guess what? Michael Whouley has been active with Bill on the campaign trail this season. They have literally done this before. Oh, but I'm sure it's just baseless, unsubstantiated claims this time.

This story still just sounds too unlikely to be true. Because it wouldn't just be petty and evil, it would also be dumb. And while Clinton's pettiness and evilness may be up for debate, her intelligence isn't. She is already winning, why would she risk a huge scandal just to win slightly more? Clinton is pretty clearly already looking towards the national elections, and she'll need those Sanders voters then. So antagonizing them doesn't make sense, at this point in the race. It's also an amazingly ineffective way of cheating. A single polling station isn't going to make much difference, even in swing states. And flying in Bill Clinton personally just makes sure that the media will notice.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:07 pm UTC

It probably is true. However Bob Shrum who plum this comes from never had a winning candidate in 8 at bats. And Gore was the VP at the time with all the baggage that follows. Bill no longer has the retinue to pull something like that off. They no longer shut down interstates or airports when Bill comes to town. At best there were some local dislocations.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jewish_scientist » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:48 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:While the Virginia rally was the more chaotic (bodyslammed reporter + multiple high-profile ejections), the ejection in the Georgia rally is more worrisome, as the Georgia group of students allegedly didn't do anything. Trump just didn't like them, so he kicked them out.

His catch phrase is,"Your fired!"
_______________________________________________________________________________________

My Latin teacher once said something that really stuck with me: 'It is a very dangerous thing when a generation grows up constantly in a state of war'. The reason is that they believe that war is the default state of life, so they waging war continuously.

The first election where I knew the names of the candidates was McCain vs. Obama. For every presidential election that I, and probably most of my generation remember, the Republicans have nominated someone who could not win*. If Trump becomes the Republican nominee, then 16 years of our lives will have been spent the thinking 'Republicans are stupid'. That will become our default state. Any time they put up a candidate, we will see them as the worst candidate until proven wrong. This applies to all elections; local, state and federal. Republicans will be constantly fighting an uphill battle. Trump winning the nomination may be the death of the Republican party.

*Any chance McCain had was destroyed when he picked Sarah Palin as his vice-president. What is really sad is that on paper, it looked like a good move. It was only later that he figured out that she was crazy.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:29 pm UTC

or he might have some small chance to save it

Romney was clumsy (and had magic underpants) when he highlighted that 47% of voters are automatically lost to the Republicans but he wasn't wrong. The republican party representing old school American conservatism is one more amnesty away from being locked out.

either way its going to be an exciting ride :)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:41 pm UTC

Romney's problem is that as a mega-millionare, he really didn't understand the culture of the typical American. $500 haircuts and $10,000 bets during a live debate are utterly horrible when Romney was trying to run as an "everyday American". If Romney just owned up his mega-millions like Trump, people would have probably liked him. But yeah, people smelled Romney's bullshit, it was very obvious. But in any case, I'd rather have Romney than the Republican trash that's on stage today. McCain stands head-and-shoulders far above today's field... with the exception being the Palin mistake. And yes, George Bush also stands far above today's crowd.

The main issue with this year's Republicans is that the sane, moderate Republicans have been estranged from the field. John Huntsman, probably the best choice in 2012, decided not to run this year because he was so pissed off at the Republicans for insulting his adopted (Chinese) daughters during his 2012 run. When Republicans are beating the shit out of each other, no sane Republican will step up to the plate.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:06 pm UTC

Slight aside, but Mormonism... is that treated as the insanity that it really is In the states? I just can't grasp why anyone would believe in an overt fraudster within recorded history. Then again I probably wouldn't ever vote for a believer (Obamas fake belief is one of his positives :) )

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6345
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:10 pm UTC

leady wrote:Slight aside, but Mormonism... is that treated as the insanity that it really is In the states? I just can't grasp why anyone would believe in an overt fraudster within recorded history. Then again I probably wouldn't ever vote for a believer (Obamas fake belief is one of his positives :) )

Christians feast on the blood and flesh of others, are you sure you wanna get into a religious rap battle? Silly things aside, Mormons are much nicer than Christians on the account of only existing in a short time period. They haven't had time to oppress anyone except gays women and blacks. All the other religions have had thousands of years to oppress others.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:11 pm UTC

I mean, I don't believe in Mormonism. But I'm not going to actively insult someone's religion or have that disqualify them from a job just because of it.

The worst thing Romney was doing publicly was not drinking Caffeine / coffee. It wasn't like he was an overt Morman polygamist or something. Oh yeah, and he was also rich, very very rich... and wasn't owning up to the amount of wealth he had. But I don't really see any issues with the guy from a religious standpoint, aside from the fact that I don't believe in his religion.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5421
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby doogly » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:13 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
leady wrote:Slight aside, but Mormonism... is that treated as the insanity that it really is In the states? I just can't grasp why anyone would believe in an overt fraudster within recorded history. Then again I probably wouldn't ever vote for a believer (Obamas fake belief is one of his positives :) )

Christians feast on the blood and flesh of others, are you sure you wanna get into a religious rap battle? Silly things aside, Mormons are much nicer than Christians on the account of only existing in a short time period. They haven't had time to oppress anyone except gays women and blacks. All the other religions have had thousands of years to oppress others.

Oh and don't forget Native Americans, they go to fuckin town with that.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cyanyoshi » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:19 pm UTC

leady wrote:Slight aside, but Mormonism... is that treated as the insanity that it really is In the states? I just can't grasp why anyone would believe in an overt fraudster within recorded history. Then again I probably wouldn't ever vote for a believer (Obamas fake belief is one of his positives :) )

Hey, Christianity is Christianity in the mind of most voters. Is Mormonism really all that crazy compared to pretty much every religion that has ever existed? I'd wager that it's primarily about recognizing Christian values rather than the specifics of whether or not Joseph Smith was full of shit.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:20 pm UTC

I'll take those responses as a no then!

cheers

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:25 pm UTC

leady wrote:Slight aside, but Mormonism... is that treated as the insanity that it really is In the states? I just can't grasp why anyone would believe in an overt fraudster within recorded history. Then again I probably wouldn't ever vote for a believer (Obamas fake belief is one of his positives :) )



There are quite a few religions with worldwide followings that are well within recorded history... Islam, for example. Or Christianity.

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." - Heinlien

All religion is insane, its just to differing degrees.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11213
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:26 pm UTC

leady wrote:or he might have some small chance to save it

Romney was clumsy (and had magic underpants) when he highlighted that 47% of voters are automatically lost to the Republicans but he wasn't wrong. The republican party representing old school American conservatism is one more amnesty away from being locked out.

either way its going to be an exciting ride :)


Right. Romney was many things. Boring, clumsy, etc...but he had a legitimate point there. Not appealing to 47% of the people(or thereabouts) is something you should be aware of. There are some systemic issues that are behind a lot of these problems. I doubt many Sanders supporters would have supported Romney, even if he'd been rather more charismatic, and while Sanders may be losing on fundamentals, that's still a considerable amount of people that are essentially abandoned to the left wing.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:31 pm UTC

People who live off bread and circuses are hard to convert to the idea of self reliance and personal liberty I fear, some I think you can reach with "America f yeah!" or "blaming the other" which is why Trump makes things interesting.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11213
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:56 pm UTC

leady wrote:People who live off bread and circuses are hard to convert to the idea of self reliance and personal liberty I fear, some I think you can reach with "America f yeah!" or "blaming the other" which is why Trump makes things interesting.


Eh. Look, I believe that yes, sometimes the young want foolish things. But it's wiser to teach them than to give up on them.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
leady wrote:People who live off bread and circuses are hard to convert to the idea of self reliance and personal liberty I fear, some I think you can reach with "America f yeah!" or "blaming the other" which is why Trump makes things interesting.

Eh. Look, I believe that yes, sometimes the young want foolish things. But it's wiser to teach them than to give up on them.

You're not going to get the GOP nomination with THAT kind of attitude, young man!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6345
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:13 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
leady wrote:People who live off bread and circuses are hard to convert to the idea of self reliance and personal liberty I fear, some I think you can reach with "America f yeah!" or "blaming the other" which is why Trump makes things interesting.


Eh. Look, I believe that yes, sometimes the young want foolish things. But it's wiser to teach them than to give up on them.

We aren't giving up on them, but the establishment is actively suppressing the stupid vote. When those paranoid bastards are claiming the elites are conspiring against them, they're actually right. And rightfully so. The ironic thing is the GOP spent so much time suppressing the minority vote, when they should have been suppressing the crazy vote.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11213
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:24 pm UTC

They're not doing a very good job of it.

Any "gop conspiracy" tale runs into a pretty basic issue of competence. I just have a really, really hard time believing that this lot is good enough to pull together a half decent plot to do anything, given demonstrated results.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Which would cause greater harm to the Republican Party - nominating Trump (against many outspoken voices within party/conservatism), or refusing to nominate Trump if he wins a majority of delegates? Both would be terrible, one will probably happen at this point.

Any chance Bloomberg will still run as an independent?


The harm to the GOP brand? nominating Trump is far worse, and they should just cheat to kick him out. Take one for the team, and throw the election. The GOP can try again in 2020, plus they get to win back during the 2018 mid terms. The big takeaway here is that purely listening to your primary voters is a TERRIBLE idea. A good establishment candidate should listen to their voters concerns, not blindly follow them.*
What is with your focus with Bloomberg? You want less candidates, not more. If you really cared, just nominate Romney or Jeb again. Equally foolish, but actual Republicans.

*Don't believe me? You gonna listen to the racists to kick out the black gay muslism transgender terrorist? Cuz that's what the GOP primary voters want. There's a reason the establishment ignores them.


I can't imagine them actively throwing the election. My bet is on them taking their chances with Trump. The base loves him, and that will push up voter turnout. Trump doesn't poll terribly against Clinton--arguably it's an ideal match-up for him, running his outsider, no corporate sponsor, anti-Washington shtick against a consummate Washington insider.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests