[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 64250)
Message
File  []
close
first orange president.jpg
642506425064250
>> No. 64250 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 6:46 pm
64250 US elections 2016
This man is going to be the next President of the US and it's going to be fucking awesome.
Expand all images.
>> No. 64251 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:10 pm
64251 spacer
>it's going to be fucking awesome.

Kill yourself. He's a dumb, racist, joke, as are you by association.
>> No. 64252 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:12 pm
64252 spacer
>>64251
So?
>> No. 64253 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:13 pm
64253 spacer

america immigrants.png
642536425364253
He's the only one who can save America from the Mexican hordes.
>> No. 64254 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:13 pm
64254 spacer
>>64252
I agree with the first lad, it's not 'awesome' when buffoonish but genuinely nasty people wield power. I bet you want Jeremy Clarkson or Boris Johnson to be Prime Minister too.
>> No. 64257 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:40 pm
64257 spacer
His Twitter account alone amazes me.
>> No. 64259 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:48 pm
64259 spacer
>>64253
Bhutan? Fucking BHUTAN? All I can assume is that there are about 6 legal migrants in North Dakota and 3 of them are a Bhutanese family.
>> No. 64260 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:54 pm
64260 spacer
I hear his campaign theme song is going to be this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROR1mpAxri0
>> No. 64263 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 8:13 pm
64263 spacer
>>64250
>first orange president.jpg
That's a shame. Boehner had hoped to take that title.
>> No. 64267 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 8:33 pm
64267 spacer
>>64251
>dumb
>made billions of dollars from a few million

I'm sure you're much smarter m80
>> No. 64270 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 8:37 pm
64270 spacer
>>64267

Not like he hires people to do that for him. I'm sure he sits down at his kitchen table and manages all his finances himself when he's not on Twitter being an obnoxious moron and replying to every single insult.
>> No. 64271 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 8:41 pm
64271 spacer
>>64250
The chance of Trump getting the nomination is incredibly slim, and even if he beats those odds, the chance of him winning against Clinton is essentially 0%. The Republicans have a serious (and growing) demographic problem, and the best way to make it a lethal problem is to get idiots like Trump on the national stage.

>>64267
As we all know, no moron has ever made money.
>> No. 64274 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:13 pm
64274 spacer
>>64270>>64271
You two really are enlightened by your own intelligence aren't you? No, idiots do not just luck their way into being a multi-billionaire, sure, Trump was >privileged in his upbringing but he made his fortune with intelligence and a deep knowledge of how markets work.

>obnoxious

This isn't even an argument imo, as Trump himself says, he doesn't have to be likeable, who'd you rather have? Some asshole who can actually do his job or a nice guy who can't?
>> No. 64275 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:20 pm
64275 spacer
>>64271
Not even 60% of the voting population bothered to turn out last time around, there are a lot of people who are just fed up with career politicians, people are tired of Bushes and Clintons, I honestly don't know why the British media is painting it as though Hillary is somehow destined to win, she has more scandals than anyone else running, is terrible with the media, poor in debates and quite frankly unlikable, just because she's a woman doesn't gift her the presidency.
>> No. 64276 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:29 pm
64276 spacer

FeelTheBern.jpg
642766427664276
Bernie can take him.
>> No. 64278 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:46 pm
64278 spacer
>>64274
A turnout of less than 60% would be a real wake up call if not for the fact that there hasn't been a turnout higher than that in nearly 50 years, mate. Hilary has extremely positive ratings within the party (80% plus favourability).

US politics have grown incredibly partisan over the past couple of decades. The key to winning elections isn't convincing the other people to switch sides, it's to convince the people on your side to turn up and vote. The excitement of electing a woman as president will no doubt be a factor in favour of turning out the vote for Clinton. She's not without her problems, and she certainly isn't "destined" to be gifted the presidency, but the odds are objectively on her side at this point in time.

>>64274
I can't believe I actually have to say these words: Donald Trump would not do a good job as president. He would be an asshole who can't do his job. The worst of both worlds.

Luckily, however, he is not in a million years going to be President.
>> No. 64279 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:50 pm
64279 spacer
>>64276

I really hope he gets the nomination, and the presidency. Hilary is as vicious a neo-con as anybody.

Bernie/Corbyn pax Anglo-Sphere when?! Don't tell me, we all know the answer already.
>> No. 64280 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:52 pm
64280 spacer
>>64276
Bernie is not going to be President either. Nor is he going to be the Democratic nominee.
>> No. 64281 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:58 pm
64281 spacer
>>64279
You can disagree with someone's foreign policy without calling them a neoconservative, just so you know. That word actually has a meaning, and it would be a real shame to have it turn into "person to my right who I don't like", like "fascist".
>> No. 64282 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:07 pm
64282 spacer
>>64278
Yeah, you're right, voter apathy has been chronic for decades, Hillary is popular within her party, but the base isn't going to win the election for her, Romney is still popular in the GOP even now, in spite of being a shit candidate.

I think people are a bit fatigued about "firsts" after the first black president, I know European and Brit media sugarcoat the issue but Obama is not and has not been popular for a long time now, it's not as bad as Bush in his twilight years, but his ratings are mediocre at best. I think looking at the larger picture the Republicans have a good chance, there is almost a pattern of them having 8 years each.

I think he would be a good president, he has balls, can self finance his campaign so not beholden to lobbyists, certainly understand the economy better than anyone else running and would make the rest of the world respect America again, not respect in way you're thinking, the "oh, that Obama guy, he's cool" way, but in a "No, we'd better not invade Crimea" way.

Trump is the most Reagan like candidate since Reagan tbh.
>> No. 64283 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:20 pm
64283 spacer
>>64281

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

And she voted to go to war with Iraq. She's a neo-con, like most in D.C..
>> No. 64284 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:30 pm
64284 spacer
>>64283
Trump was always against it as a matter of interest.
>> No. 64285 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:33 pm
64285 spacer
>>64284

That's great, but he's also a racist billionaire, so it's moot.
>> No. 64287 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:41 pm
64287 spacer
>>64285
Obama's racist too, just not against blacks. Most Americans are sick of being Mexico's dustbin as well, it's baffling that the Republicans won't nut up and battle the issue head on, it's not like hispanics are going to vote for Jeb just because he sucks up to them. They'll always vote Dem. Another moderate like Mitt is the last guy they need to win.
>> No. 64288 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:00 pm
64288 spacer
>>64282
I'd be surprised if Romney ever touched 80% favourability within the GOP, even at the "height" of his popularity.

European and "Brit" media don't habitually report about the popularity ratings of American presidents one way or the other mate, it's not exactly a pressing concern.

Based on his actual statements on policy, there is no reason to believe Trump understands the economy. There is every reason to believe he is clown. The prospect of trying to convey why this is to someone dense enough to think he's some sort of genius strongman doesn't really interest me. Luckily, it doesn't matter, because he will not be the Republican nominee, and he will not be president.

Like Ron Paul, the sheer size of the portion of the party who are hostile to him and his ideas and will never come around to agreeing with him means that there is a hard ceiling on his support. Paul consistently polled in the top few candidates in 2012, and yet there was never any chance of him actually winning the nomination, because despite his vocal supporters, most of the party were not interested in him or what he was selling.

Another key factor is Trump's inherent inability to secure the endorsement of party actors, which is crucial to winning the nomination. It isn't about throwing money around, it's about having an actual efficient operation spreading your message. If you want to start from scratch building that operation, you have a really fucking hard time ahead of you. When you have influential supporters in your party (representatives, senators and especially governors) who already have a successful infrastructure in place, it becomes a lot easier. People like Bush, Walker, Rubio, and even Rand have been seriously planning this for years. Trump's campaign, on the other hand, is so half assed it's hard to tell whether or not it is or was a publicity stunt.

Trump can fill a room with thousands of people. Ron Paul could too. So can Bernie Sanders. None of them have ever or will ever have a real chance of becoming president, though, because that simply isn't how it works.

>>64283
Again, you disagree with her foreign policy. I do too! Doesn't mean she's a neocon.
>> No. 64289 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:06 pm
64289 spacer
>>64274
Why did you put that chevron before the word privileged?
>> No. 64290 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:07 pm
64290 spacer
>>64287
>Obama's racist too, just not against blacks
Oh good, this will definitely stimulate an intelligent discussion.
>> No. 64291 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:08 pm
64291 spacer
>>64289
I would guess that he's straight off the funchan banana boat.
>> No. 64292 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:25 pm
64292 spacer
>>64288
The point about popularity is that the Democrats have fallen out of favour, it isn't often a party can stay in power for three terms, the last time was with Bush Sr. and he was carrying the torch from the extremely popular Reagan.

>statements of policy

Sorry to say but 90% of voters don't really give a shit, charisma matters, that's how Presidential elections have worked ever since the television, and Trump is the most charismatic candidate. How tall the guy is, his delivery and overall confidence, a well funded campaign, these things are in all honesty more important than policy. Sounds trollish but that's the reality of things.

Poor old Ron was someone they could easily sweep under the carpet, Trump is not. he's also the type of guy that could well go third party and split the vote, a la Ross Perot.

>endorsement

The guy's established and has money to burn, he doesn't need it, but if he keeps up momentum they'll have no choice but to support him.

The real brunt of your argument is that you don't think Trump can win because he's Trump, they said the same about a certain cowboy actor.
>> No. 64293 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:29 pm
64293 spacer
>>64290
I would say something like he isn't doing anything significant about Ferguson or racial equality, but then I remembered Congress is controlled by the Republicans, so he can't.
>> No. 64294 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:35 pm
64294 spacer
>>64293

What do you think Obama needs to do about racial equality?
>> No. 64295 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:38 pm
64295 spacer
>>64292
The comment on his economic acumen was in response to the suggestion that Trump understands the economy better than anybody running, not a comment on his electability.

>The guy's established and has money to burn, he doesn't need it, but if he keeps up momentum they'll have no choice but to support him.
He has name recognition because he's a reality TV star. He is not "established". You are ignoring the explanation I gave as to why those endorsements matter. In fact, you're ignoring almost everything I said.

>The real brunt of your argument is that you don't think Trump can win because he's Trump, they said the same about a certain cowboy actor.
I have given very good reasons why he can't win, the fact that you haven't engaged with them doesn't mean they don't exist. But yeah, maybe if Trump becomes a governor and is extremely popular with his constituents at his time of leaving office, I'll reconsider.
>> No. 64296 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:45 pm
64296 spacer
>>64292
>they said the same about a certain cowboy actor
Yes, and John Wayne didn't win either.
>> No. 64297 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:52 pm
64297 spacer
>>64296

Almost every time I hear or see the name John Wayne, I spend 0.5 seconds confusing him with Johnny Cash.

Sage for complete irreverence.
>> No. 64298 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:55 pm
64298 spacer
>>64294
Well, here are some suggestions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-should-do-now-address-racial-inequality/2012/11/09/4bac5210-29de-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html
>For example, in addition to lowering mandatory minimum sentences, the administration should stop funding the Byrne grant program, which provides federal money for state and local criminal law enforcement. These grants are often awarded to cities and states with high rates of arrest and conviction, therefore encouraging aggressive policing.

>As is well known, high incarceration rates reduce employability and civic participation, and weaken family bonds. The president and his congressional allies ought to advocate for legislation that would ban employers from requiring former felons to identify themselves as such. This might help address the incredibly high unemployment among ex-offenders and better enable them to rebuild their lives after serving their time.

>We are also in dire need of a federal jobs program focused on geographic areas where unemployment and poverty are pervasive. Likewise, we need the federal government to support public education, rather than encouraging schools to privatize or become charters, which are often run by corporations and non-educators and displace trained teachers.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-03-01/racial-inequality-after-racism
>Jim Crow–era voting restrictions, such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and the grandfather clause, were adopted precisely because they appeared to be race neutral and therefore compliant with the 15th Amendment, which prohibits race-based voting discrimination. And even today, seemingly race-neutral policies often reinforce racial inequalities, although what is different now is that the officials behind them may harbor no racist intentions. To take one well-known example, cocaine drug laws that are based on the principle of colorblindness—distinguishing not between black and white defendants but between crimes involving crack cocaine and those related to powder cocaine—have resulted in grossly disproportionate punishments for black offenders.

http://www.thenation.com/article/reducing-racial-inequality-our-justice-system/
>In 2010, President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law and ensured that those arrested with crack—mostly young, African-American men—are no longer subject to a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity compared to those arrested with essentially the same drug in powder form, who are more likely to be Caucasian.

>The Fair Sentencing Act was a rare time in history when Congress reduced sentences, thereby enunciating a sharp turn in public policy, yet those sentenced prior to 2010 remain in prison, serving sentences that have now been repudiated by Congress. ... If, as Dr. King wrote, “justice too long delayed is justice denied,” then every day they continue to sit in prison serving sentences that policymakers—and the American people—believe no longer fit their crime is another day that justice is denied. I continue to call on President Obama to use his commutation power to correct these injustices today.

>And there is more he can do. According to a recent poll, 52 percent of Americans now support legalization of marijuana. And a recent ACLU report revealed that despite using marijuana at the same rate as Caucasians, African-Americans were arrested for marijuana at a rate four times higher than whites. With opposition to the failed policies of criminalization and prohibition growing every day, Congress should immediately act to catch up with the American people. In the interim, the president should not let anyone suffer one more day for the mistakes of outdated policy. He should be guided by the fierce urgency of now.

>Commutation of nonviolent offenders is a significant step the president can take immediately, but he has so far used this power—one of the few he has that cannot be obstructed by the Tea Party—far less than his predecessors.
>> No. 64299 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 12:22 am
64299 spacer
>>64250

I doubt that.

The Republican party hasn't had a president elected that wasn't a Nixon or a Bush for decades.
>> No. 64302 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 3:36 am
64302 spacer
He'd be the most American of presidents. A good choice. I can already imagine him shouting "blow it out of your ass," at all the people against him when he bombs poor countries or stops handing out food stamps.

Let the good times roll.
>> No. 64303 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 3:37 am
64303 spacer
>>64253
What's with Somalis and Scandinavians?
>> No. 64304 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 3:42 am
64304 spacer
>>64303
I don't really like Jerry Seinfeld's new race material, it's kind of weird.
>> No. 64305 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 4:49 am
64305 spacer
Guys iwm equally seseubjnb plwqw rakenpitt.
>> No. 64307 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 6:46 am
64307 spacer

image.jpg
643076430764307
>>64259

Bhutanese refugees are the descendants of people who caught alongside the British East India company forces against Croydon in the Gurkha wars. They have been treated badly in Bhutan which created a refugee crisis, some of them have managed to resettle in Croydon and some in other countries. Of the top of my head I can't remember why America agreed to take so many.

Picture of the best food in Croydon.
>> No. 64314 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 12:36 pm
64314 spacer

Donald-Trump-Boris-Johnson.jpg
643146431464314
I fucking hate how you morons just dismiss people as racists, clowns or neocons. What a fucking waste of time, keep your trap shut if you've nothing to contribute. Grown ups only.
>> No. 64320 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 1:04 pm
64320 spacer
>>64314

There's nothing more childish than thinking you're so grown up.
>> No. 64321 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 1:07 pm
64321 spacer
>>64314
Whereas you're really exhibiting your maturity with that post.
>> No. 64322 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 1:18 pm
64322 spacer
>>64314
I'm sure you never dismiss people are loonie lefty tumblrite fems and the like.
>> No. 64323 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 1:39 pm
64323 spacer
>>64314
No comparison there, lad. BoJo is rather intelligent, but plays a buffoon for the crowds. He only really gets into trouble when he goes off-script while speaking. Trump, on the other hand, is an actual buffoon.
>> No. 64324 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 3:29 pm
64324 spacer
>>64314
Trump's not a "racist, clown or neocon", he's just a racist clown. And (overtly) racist clowns don't get to drive the clown car in 2016, I'm sorry that the reality of that upsets you.
>> No. 64325 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 4:08 pm
64325 spacer
>>64324
Why are you having a teary? Trump is like an average American. They should choose someone they can see eye to eye with.
>> No. 64326 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 4:20 pm
64326 spacer
As to Hillary's popularity, it's been in decline for some time now.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

>>64324
I'm afraid when you screech racist at anything and everything like some demented harpy you devalue the word, and these shame tactics only work if a candidate is weak and shamable, Trump isn't, the media could hammer the issue of him having divorced so many times for instance, but he doesn't pretend to be some paragon of virtue so it has no punch. Anything they throw at him will just fall off like water off a duck's back.
>> No. 64327 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 5:02 pm
64327 spacer
>>64325
I want aware the average American was a rich, racist clown.
>> No. 64328 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 5:10 pm
64328 spacer
>>64327
Not in financial terms, foreveroffendedlad. The average American, politically speaking, is like Trump. He is the quintessential American. They should definitely vote for him.
>> No. 64329 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 5:24 pm
64329 spacer
To understand the Trump appeal, you have to understand the American mindset.

First imagine the quintessential British stiff upper lip. That stoic responsibility that characterises our people. Now try to picture the American equivalent. The American Dream- That sickly, almost naive optimism that underlines all their media output and domestic history. If you try hard enough, you will get there too.

Trump embodies that. People like him are living gods in America, in a way that will probably compared to Egyptian Pharoahs when our civilization passes beyond memory.
>> No. 64332 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 7:10 pm
64332 spacer
I want Are Jacob to be PM.
>> No. 64333 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 7:49 pm
64333 spacer
>>64326
She's got a long way to fall before she's anywhere near as reviled as Trump.

>I'm afraid when you screech racist at anything and everything like some demented harpy you devalue the word, and these shame tactics only work if a candidate is weak and shamable, Trump isn't, the media could hammer the issue of him having divorced so many times for instance, but he doesn't pretend to be some paragon of virtue so it has no punch. Anything they throw at him will just fall off like water off a duck's back.
I'm not saying that Trump is a racist to shame him, mate. I agree with you: he is shameless (I don't know why you think that's a good thing). I'm saying it because of the stupendously stupid racist shit that comes out of his mouth, be it his comments on Mexicans or his absurd "birther" thing.

The media doesn't need to hammer anything at him to make him unelectable. He is already unelectable. Regardless of how much you might want him to be President, if you can't understand why he is never going to be President you have zero understanding of the American political process.
>> No. 64335 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:33 pm
64335 spacer
>>64333
Trump's popularity has doubled since his anti-Mexican speech, I know it's hard for trigger policing Guardian readers like yourself to believe but not every American is tripping over themselves to suck immigrant cock, in fact, many despise them, this isn't aimed at all Mexicans of course, but the ones the US gets are the bottom of the barrel ones.

>unelectable

You're just firing buzzwords mate, >racist >obnoxious >unelectable

It's honestly ridiculous that you think Trump is an impossibility while you assume Hillary, who has more scandals than her arm is long, is the anointed one. Hillary's past is going to catch up with her, and she refuses to give straight answers, another reason why the average guy, the fence sitter, doesn't like her.

After 8 years of vapid platitudes and against his manufactured rivals a brash, real talking guy like Trump is a breath of fresh air.
>> No. 64336 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:37 pm
64336 spacer
Bickering aside, Bernie vs Trump would make for good watching
>> No. 64337 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:45 pm
64337 spacer
>>64336
I just want an interesting election, to have Bush vs Clinton would be the most boring and depressing outcome possible.
>> No. 64338 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:51 pm
64338 spacer
>ctrl-f "caucus"
>0 of 0
>ctrl-f "Florida"
>0 of 0

This thread isn't about politics at all.
>> No. 64339 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:52 pm
64339 spacer
>>64333
>muh process
Read Spengler and you'll see that we're approaching the final stage of civilisation: The Age of the Caesars. The men who run the country are there purely because of their cult of personality.

Someone like Trump will enter the white house.
>> No. 64341 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:17 pm
64341 spacer

fXp1YLp.png
643416434164341
>>64335
>Trump's popularity has doubled since his anti-Mexican speech
And yet he is still far less popular than Hitlery Clinton who ALL AMERICANS DEFINITELY HATE.

>the average guy, the fence sitter
The "average guy" is not on the fence, you moron. Truly undecided independent voters are a small minority, and it's really just a polite term for very low info voters. Again, you do not win elections by convincing people you're right, you win by convincing people who already agree with you (or, and this is yet another reason why Trump would be a disaster for the Republicans, who already disagree with the other candidate) to get off their ass and vote. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the modern American political process.

Saying that, I don't think anything's going to get through to you. Anybody who thinks that a racist clown with no political experience or backing who is hard at work issuing sick burns to libertarian magicians on twitter while serious candidates mobilise actual campaigns is a potential, and desirable, future President is beyond reason.

This thread is going to be fucking hilarious to look back on a year from now.

>>64336
The primaries are already shaping up to be more of a circus than 2008 and 2012 put together, and that's saying something. If Trump gets to share a stage with Jeb and Rubio it will be more entertaining than anything I could've possibly hoped for.
>> No. 64342 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:19 pm
64342 spacer
>>64333

So you're basically one of those sorts who sees a black president, and thinks WELL FUCK YEAH THE NEXT ONE SHOULD HAVE A VAGINA! THE ONE AFTER THAT WILL PROBABLY BE GAY!!!

I don't exactly have my finger on the pulse of the US political scene, but from what I have seen of Hilary as a politician, nobody in their right fucking mind would vote for her. I don't know if she's better or worse than Trump, but I see little good coming of either.

Then again, considering the state of the average American in terms of being educated and well-informed, you might be right, and we see her win with a landslide simply by every single woman in the country voting for her.
>> No. 64343 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:27 pm
64343 spacer
>>64342
>So you're basically one of those sorts who sees a black president, and thinks WELL FUCK YEAH THE NEXT ONE SHOULD HAVE A VAGINA! THE ONE AFTER THAT WILL PROBABLY BE GAY!!!
No, dickhead, I'm not. I haven't made any statement on who should be President other than implying that Trump shouldn't. The joke of this whole thing is I don't even fucking like Hilary Clinton. That doesn't mean she doesn't have a very good chance of becoming President.
>> No. 64345 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:50 pm
64345 spacer
>>64341
Hillary's popularity has been declining for years, Trump is on the way up. These are the trends right now. You see where this is going.

There are still people who aren't dedicated to one party or who vote Dem one election and Repub the next, if this weren't so there would just be one party that kept on winning, which obviously isn't the case. There are people you can sway.

You're way too entrenched in your idea of what a politician "should" be, which seems to be a straight-laced moderate who has anything he says go through the committee grinder. As for Trump's shitposting on twitter you could well say the same about Obama, what was he doing shitposting on reddit (and shitposting in real life with memes and other childish nonsense) while we have multiple wars going on and a debt crisis? You honestly sound very out of touch, the internet is a major tool for ostensibly serious people now, it certainly helped the current president get elected.

>racist
>clown
>serious candidate

This again, Jesus Christ, you're a parrot. A non-combative, moderate establishment candidate like you think they ought to have, another Romney or McCain, simply isn't going to work, people have short attention spans while Mars and Earth align, people treat elections like reality TV, you need someone who can work with that, not some nice guy stiff who lets the media tread all over them.

Look, I'm not saying Trump is absolutely guaranteed to win, I think his biggest obstacle is the Republicans themselves, but I do think he will do brilliantly in the debates, he's in his element with that kind of shit.

Let me ask you this - do you think Jeb Bush (the only other likely candidate) would stand a better chance than Trump?
>> No. 64346 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:53 pm
64346 spacer
I hope Trump wins. And Boris.
>> No. 64347 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:56 pm
64347 spacer
>>64345

>As for Trump's shitposting on twitter you could well say the same about Obama, what was he doing shitposting on reddit (and shitposting in real life with memes and other childish nonsense) while we have multiple wars going on and a debt crisis?

Let's agree that Trump should stop shitposting on Twitter and start actually campaigning, and that Obama should stop having aids run his media profiling and join the army and during his lunch breaks single-handedly fix their debt crisis.
>> No. 64348 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:56 pm
64348 spacer
>>64342

You have to be joking. You accuse him of that outlandish nonsense in the first line, before reasoning Americans must be idiots, despite not "having your finger on the pulse of US politics", all because they probably won't elect a reality TV start who spends most of his time either alienating the exact voter republicans need to win, or having social media interactions the like of which most people stopped shortly after their 13th birthday. As I said, you have to be joking, you're so absurd I can't take what I read seriously.

Whatever, I made a /101/ post about British people who care for more for American politics than they do our own, and this thread is a shining example, and my participation is just as rueful as anyones.
>> No. 64349 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:22 pm
64349 spacer
Is it weird that I want Trump to win after reading the annoying lad's posts?
>> No. 64350 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:22 pm
64350 spacer
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been female presidential candidates before, have there not? What stopped them surfing their way to victory on a tidal wave of support from women? And why should it be different for Clinton?
>> No. 64351 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:23 pm
64351 spacer
>>64348
American elections are more fun.
>> No. 64352 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:24 pm
64352 spacer
>>64350
What makes you think all women would vote for a female candidate just because... Fanny?
>> No. 64353 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:27 pm
64353 spacer
Evidence suggests women are slightly more prone to vote for female candidates.

Doesn't make a lot of difference though.
>> No. 64354 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:29 pm
64354 spacer
>>64350

Not one for the Dems or GOP ticket. No other party has a chance of winning the election.
>> No. 64355 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:31 pm
64355 spacer
>>64352

Nothing in particular but it sounded for a bit like people were considering Hilary a shoe-in on that basis.
>> No. 64356 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:34 pm
64356 spacer
>>64355
That's mostly the feel good champagne socialists and Guardian readers. Don't pay them any mind.
>> No. 64357 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:34 pm
64357 spacer
>>64355

>shoe-in

It's shoo-in!
>> No. 64358 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:36 pm
64358 spacer

imrs.png
643586435864358
>>64345
>Hillary's popularity has been declining for years, Trump is on the way up. These are the trends right now. You see where this is going.
THIS LINE GOES UP, THIS LINE GOES DOWN, LET'S NOT THINK ABOUT THE CONTEXT FOR THAT OR CAUSATION OR ANYTHING, LET'S JUST CALL IT A TREND AND MOVE ON TRUMP 2016

Fuck me.

>There are still people who aren't dedicated to one party or who vote Dem one election and Repub the next, if this weren't so there would just be one party that kept on winning, which obviously isn't the case. There are people you can sway.
If it was the same people casting votes every election, that would be correct. But it isn't.

>A non-combative, moderate establishment candidate like you think they ought to have, another Romney or McCain, simply isn't going to work, people have short attention spans while Mars and Earth align, people treat elections like reality TV, you need someone who can work with that, not some nice guy stiff who lets the media tread all over them.
>You're way too entrenched in your idea of what a politician "should" be, which seems to be a straight-laced moderate who has anything he says go through the committee grinder
Nope. Cruz and Walker, for example, are not moderates, non-combative or establishment approved, and yet they have a far, far better chance at success than Trump.

>As for Trump's shitposting on twitter you could well say the same about Obama, what was he doing shitposting on reddit (and shitposting in real life with memes and other childish nonsense) while we have multiple wars going on and a debt crisis? You honestly sound very out of touch, the internet is a major tool for ostensibly serious people now, it certainly helped the current president get elected.
Trump isn't ridiculous because he's on twitter, he's ridiculous because he's on twitter being a petty, narcissistic braggart. He has this problem when he's speaking in person too: half of his rally in Phoenix was just him making lame burns on all the people and companies who had distanced themselves from him for damage control. Although, at least when he's making vacuous boasts he's not talking about his actual policies, which are even more poorly conceived. I think the 35% import tariff is my favourite so far.

Trump would give the Democrats a landslide that hasn't been seen since 72. Any other candidate would stand a better chance than him.

Tell you what, build me a map that you think is a viable route to Trump winning the electoral vote:

http://www.270towin.com/

While you're filling it in, keep the attached image in mind. Good luck!

>>64355
There have been other primary contenders over the years, but she will be the first candidate in the general should she win, which is almost an inevitability. She's not a shoo-in because women will all vote for her, but the fact that she's a woman certainly won't hurt democratic turnout. Like it or not, the idea of being a part of the "historical movement" that elects the first black guy, woman etc. is a greater motivator among the democratic base than being someone who helped elect old white dude #43.
>> No. 64359 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:36 pm
64359 spacer
>>64354
There have been candidates for VP. Mondale had a bint on his ticket, and it's said that McCain's bid was sunk by the prospect of Palin being a heart attack away from the top job.
>> No. 64360 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 11:17 pm
64360 spacer
>>64358
Wow, you really are convinced Hillary is going to win, I'm not sure if you know why opinion of her has grown so dim but I don't have the patience to discuss Benghazi and the email scandal, things you should be well aware of if you haven't been living under a rock. These are big issues, and will haunt her.

Cruz and Walker don't have the looks, fame or charisma to be president, they're Santorum and Huntsman tier.

>Trump is a meanie, I hate him

Ok, I get that, but a lot of people agree with him, it's his frank attitude and swagger that has got him this early attention, it's a good thing, not bad.

Jeb Bush is the only other real competition, his being a Bush has some currency with a slice of voters, but it's poison to many more. He's not charismatic, has a shitty weak name, "Jeb" (yes, this matters), and is pandering more to Mexicans than any Democrat, he's a RINO basically.

Yeah I see your pic, hispanics are growing, it's incredibly stupid of the Republicans to have not done more about hispanics. Most do vote Democrat and it doesn't much matter who the Republicans pitch in that regard.

You can't rely on women to vote for Hillary, no-one hates women more than women themselves, and many think she's a bitch (not even to do with the scandals, it's just herself), this isn't like blacks who actually do vote as a monolithic bloc.
>> No. 64363 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 11:39 pm
64363 spacer
>>64360
>Yeah I see your pic, hispanics are growing, it's incredibly stupid of the Republicans to have not done more about hispanics. Most do vote Democrat and it doesn't much matter who the Republicans pitch in that regard.
It does matter who the Republicans pitch you thick cunt. For the last fucking time, it's not that there's a chance that the Republicans could win the hispanic vote, it's that if they nominate someone who is perceived by hispanics to be racist against them, hispanics will be highly motivated to turn up to vote for the other candidate. Demographics in swing states (which were won by the Democrats in 2012, you may have noticed) are a growing problem for Republicans. Trump would make this a much worse problem by increasing the turnout of demographics already unfavourable towards the Republican party.

¿Comprende?

>You can't rely on women to vote for Hillary, no-one hates women more than women themselves
>has a shitty weak name, "Jeb" (yes, this matters)
You're talking absolute shit and nothing you say means anything.

Why don't you make an actual concrete assertion and build me a map showing which states you believe Trump can succeed in that Romney couldn't?

http://www.270towin.com/
>> No. 64364 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 11:59 pm
64364 spacer
>>64363
Why are you so confrontational?
>> No. 64365 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 12:00 am
64365 spacer
>>64363
Trump may well motivate some hispanics (though quite a few want the door shut after them), but in turn will motivate a great deal of whites to vote, there are a lot of people who you would without doubt call racist that don't like the idea of America becoming Mexico 2.0, but there hasn't been a real candidate who's taken the bull by the horns like Trump has, everyone other Republican is too chickenshit to even bring it up in a serious way.

It's worth noting that not all non-whites are allied against whites, and Trump could even gain a few black votes (they love celebrities, and dislike hispanics more than whites as they often share the same areas).

The woman thing, I can see you're assuming rather too much, women will not just vote a woman for President like blacks did with Obama, sure some will, but it's not a big deal to women outside leftist circles who would vote Democrat no matter which candidate was put up.

I'm not going to play the autistic webgame, these stupid analysis things never work out even when they get guys who do it for their career like Nate Silver.
>> No. 64366 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 12:08 am
64366 spacer
>>64365
>I'm not going to play the autistic webgame, these stupid analysis things never work
So you're not going to make predictions about who can win based on routes to victory in the electoral college through demographic appeal in swing states, you are instead going to posit that Trump can win because "blacks love celebrities". Ok. I think this has run its course.

>even when they get guys who do it for their career like Nate Silver.
Yeah, the analysis of the guy who correctly predicted the results of every single state in 2012 really didn't work out.
>> No. 64367 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 12:31 am
64367 spacer
>>64366
You can't predictably reduce elections to a formula like you so clearly want, at least not at this stage, there's a lot of things that can happen in the 16 months between now and the election and I don't pretend to know what they will be, again, I never said Trump was sure to win, but I do think he has a very good chance.

>blacks like celebrities

They do, black culture worships athletes, rappers and guys with money, I know this is triggering you or something but it's true, and not just with the youth either. The other half about them disliking hispanics is also true.

Nate kept conveniently adjusting shit towards the end, I know there was a lot of shit he got called out on back in 2012, I can tell you're too emotionally involved to have a normal debate about this, I think you said you were against Hillary but I'm finding that hard to believe now.

As for me, I just want to watch the fireworks, a Trump presidency would be an amazing thing to witness, I don't think even a Schwarzenegger presidency would be as entertaining.
>> No. 64368 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 12:46 am
64368 spacer
>>64367
I'm not asking you to reduce anything to a formula, I'm asking you which states you think Trump can win that Romney couldn't. It's a very straightforward question. If you can't answer that, I'm not sure on what basis you think you can say he has a "very good chance".

If only Nate Silver had based his predictions on such concrete data as "blacks love celebrities" and "women hate themselves", he would surely have predicted 75 out of 50 states correctly.
>> No. 64369 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 1:06 am
64369 spacer

Randyman.jpg
643696436964369
All this talk about Trump is shifting the focus away from America's real saviour: Rand Paul. I take it his chances for getting the republican nomination are slim to none?
>> No. 64370 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 1:19 am
64370 spacer
>>64369
They're slim, but they're not Trump slim. He's been very popular as a senator in Kentucky, and has an endorsement from Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell under his belt, which isn't too shabby considering how diametrically opposed he is to the Republican establishment in a lot of cases.

He'll be interesting to watch as the campaign unfolds, but barring a few implosions of more viable candidates, he's definitely a long shot.
>> No. 64371 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 2:59 am
64371 spacer
>>64368
Your posts are utter trash mate.
>> No. 64372 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 3:32 am
64372 spacer
>>64371
I will make a bold prediction here and now that my trash posts will have as many pledged delegates as Donald Trump.
>> No. 64373 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 6:18 am
64373 spacer
>>64343

>No, dickhead, I'm not.

Haha, yes you are.
>> No. 64374 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 10:59 am
64374 spacer
Btw looking at some of Nate Silver's more recent predictions is pretty entertaining.

>Today, Silver’s website is arguing not merely that the Brazilian soccer team is most likely to win the World Cup, but that it has a remarkable 38% chance of doing so

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettarends/2014/06/24/is-nate-silver-wrong-about-the-world-cup/

He was way off with our own election too.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/nate-silver-polls-are-failing-us-206799.html
>> No. 64418 Anonymous
19th July 2015
Sunday 11:07 am
64418 spacer
I'm not following US politics closely, but I can see echoes in this video of the upthread accusations against Trump of stupidity. He's treating the public as he would people in his boardroom, and that can surely never work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/18/trump-slams-mccain-for-being-captured-in-vietnam/
>> No. 64427 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 1:56 am
64427 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m91vEm9kAsY

He actually seems fairly reasonable outside the twitter feed and the sound bites.
>> No. 64428 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 7:46 am
64428 spacer
>>64418
He's plain speaking and appeals to the broad Republican demographic. I don't see why he wouldn't win the nomination.

Whether he beats Hillary is a different question. I can't see Dems going out in droves to vote for her though.
>> No. 64429 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 9:22 am
64429 spacer
>>64428
Oh, Donald.
>> No. 64430 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 10:37 am
64430 spacer
>>64428
Right. In the boardroom he'd usually be the boss and it makes sense for him to state his views strongly and only allow challenges from people with complete confidence in themselves. He's a strong leader. On certain political issues he'll gain many votes with his plain speaking. First among them would be immigration, what with many people feeling like honest debate has been stifled by political correctness. When he starts "plain speaking" about who is and isn't a war hero, he can only lose votes; America isn't renowned for its reluctance to worship military representations of heroism. My point is, his approach only makes sense when he stands not just to lose, but to gain votes too. There's a reason politicians are renowned for their duplicitous and evasive speech: it's a political necessity in a modern democracy.
>> No. 64432 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 1:41 pm
64432 spacer
>>64428
It appeals to me too. Fuck the Greens. We need a British Donald.
>> No. 64433 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 1:42 pm
64433 spacer
>>64432
Alan Sugar?
>> No. 64434 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 2:25 pm
64434 spacer
>>64428
He can't and won't win the nomination.
>> No. 64435 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 2:30 pm
64435 spacer
>>64434
He will m8.
>> No. 64438 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 5:28 pm
64438 spacer
>>64435
A little over half the base likes him. Less than a quarter of other voters like him. He will do poorly in primaries, though may do better in caucuses. Unfortunately only around 20% of the delegates are available through caucuses, whereas 25% are through FPTP primaries where he's unlikely to top the poll. Especially if Chris Christie gets any traction - he has the straight talk but without the crazy, and is a red governor in a blue-ish state who plays well with voters outside the base.
>> No. 64439 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 7:05 pm
64439 spacer
>>64438
He will get fewer delegates than Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is not going to get many delegates.
>> No. 64445 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 3:43 pm
64445 spacer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-surges-to-big-lead-in-gop-presidential-race/2015/07/20/efd2e0d0-2ef8-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html
>> No. 64446 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 4:00 pm
64446 spacer
>>64445
Sigh. This is happening. This is really happening...
>> No. 64447 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 4:05 pm
64447 spacer
>>64445
>Support for Trump fell sharply on the one night that voters were surveyed following those comments. Telephone interviewing for the poll began Thursday, and most calls were completed before the news about the remarks was widely reported.
>Although the sample size for the final day was small, the decline was statistically significant. Still, it is difficult to predict what could happen to Trump’s support in the coming days and weeks as the controversy plays out.
Also remember that both McCain and Romney were well behind at this stage. The first actual action isn't until the first week of next year.
>> No. 64455 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:01 pm
64455 spacer
>>64446
Don't panic lad. Americans can be stupid, but they're not going to vote for Trump for president in a million years. He is the local equivalent of a more personally successful Savile. Says things that people want to hear, couldn't govern to save his life.
>> No. 64456 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:05 pm
64456 spacer
>>64455
Also probably won't be outed as a nonce until after he's dead.
>> No. 64459 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:14 pm
64459 spacer
What boggles my brain is that the election isn't until fucking November 2016. It just goes on and fucking on. Well over a year away and already there's a load of coverage. Couldn't give a toss.

I hope Donald Trump falls into a skip.
>> No. 64460 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:22 pm
64460 spacer
>>64459
That's what happens when your election dates are fixed. We never had to put up with this shit because most of the time we didn't get two years' notice. As we saw with the election this year, when we knew it was coming things started happening well over a year out.
>> No. 64461 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:39 pm
64461 spacer
>>64460
Nothing like the same scale as the states though, the vast majority of campaigning was still relatively short, at least in comparison to the yanks.
>> No. 64462 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:43 pm
64462 spacer
>>64446
Nah.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/20/why-is-trump-surging-blame-the-media/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-the-worlds-greatest-troll/

The only people who think he has a real shot are the true believers who are retarded enough to fall for his gimmick and the people who only pay attention to American politics once every four years.

Just sit back and enjoy the show. If nothing else, Trump's a consummate entertainer, born and bred.
>> No. 64463 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 11:11 pm
64463 spacer
It's the five (six) stages of Trump grief.

Denial
>"Trump is just a meme candidate. No one would seriously vote for him. It's just a publicity stunt!"

Anger
>"What the fuck, how can anyone be stupid enough to vote for a bigoted bully with bad hair like Trump!? He's making a mockery of our political system!

Bargaining
>"H-He's actually a Democrat in disguise. He's running to discredit the Republicans and guarantee that Hillary wins..."

Depression
>"I can't believe that America would seriously elect Donald Trump for president. It's game over, man. I'm moving to Canada. America is finished."

Acceptance
>"What do you mean, I'm hired? Even with my useless degree and complete lack of work experience, you say that you can't fill positions fast enough to keep up with the economic boom under President Trump? Well, I guess America isn't doomed, but he still has a stupid haircut!

Liberal Bonus Stage: Arousal
>"YES GOD YES FILL ME WITH YOUR ENORMOUS PATRIARCHAL COCK YOU ARROGANT WHITE HETEROSEXUAL CISGENDERED ALPHA MALE! I'M COMING EVEN FASTER THAN OUR JOBS BACK FROM OVERSEAS!!"
>> No. 64464 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 2:13 am
64464 spacer
>>64459

They need to elect the primaries long before November, though.
>> No. 64467 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 2:11 pm
64467 spacer
>>64427
God, his barnet is shocking, Trump is actually hideous to look at.

Fucking seppos. I hope they elect the cunt. The world could do with laughing at them for a few years
>> No. 64470 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 3:09 pm
64470 spacer
>>64467
Laugh and the world laughs with you, laugh at America and get firebombed.
>> No. 64471 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 3:16 pm
64471 spacer
>>64467>>64470

Yeah, Bush was a laugh until he started dumping JDAMs on people.
>> No. 64479 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 10:01 pm
64479 spacer
Texan Republican here

Trump has no shot at winning the Republican nomination. Most Republicans hate him; he's just vocal enough to get media attention.

>>64463
I laughed.
>> No. 64480 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 10:28 pm
64480 spacer

simshouse.jpg
644806448064480
>>64479
I thought I'd check out what your little town looks like. It's like a goddamn game of The Sims.
>> No. 64481 Anonymous
23rd July 2015
Thursday 12:09 am
64481 spacer

neverhitsohard.gif
644816448164481

>> No. 64482 Anonymous
23rd July 2015
Thursday 11:44 am
64482 spacer

20150721-publicrelations[1].png
644826448264482

>> No. 64485 Anonymous
23rd July 2015
Thursday 10:14 pm
64485 spacer
>>64480
Not my town, but close enough.
>> No. 64580 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 12:35 am
64580 spacer

trump-hair[1].jpg
645806458064580
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bloomberg-billionaires-index-donald-trump-net-worth-seven-billion-less-120724.html?cmpid=sf

How small must the man's dick be that being a billionaire isn't enough, he has to pretend to be a TEN BILLIONAIRE?

Also
>In a summary of his finances released in June, Trump estimated the value of his brand name at $3.3 billion
My sides.
>> No. 64581 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 3:47 am
64581 spacer
>>64580
What about your sides?
>> No. 64584 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 5:27 pm
64584 spacer
>>64580
>implying someone who's 6'3" isn't hung

Jelly manlet detected.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 64586 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 5:45 pm
64586 spacer
>>64580
How small must yours be to be talking about his?
>> No. 64588 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:00 pm
64588 spacer
I still don't get why being a billionaire is considered a good thing for a president. Are people not familiar with the words vested interests?
>> No. 64591 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:20 pm
64591 spacer
>>64588
Have you tried talking to people? Beware: you'll find out just how much they're not familiar with. Only today someone was impressed with me because I knew the words "nest egg", much to my bemusement. I blew his mind when I showed him how to defeat website input validation with soft hyphens.
>> No. 64592 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:23 pm
64592 spacer
>>64588
Well he has no incentive to get rich from it does he.
>> No. 64594 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:38 pm
64594 spacer
>>64592
However, he certainly has an incentive to stay rich.
>> No. 64595 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:41 pm
64595 spacer
>>64594
Not hard.
>> No. 64596 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:44 pm
64596 spacer
>>64595
Even easier if you're the president.
>> No. 64709 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 8:00 pm
64709 spacer
CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9_LJj7A68
>> No. 64710 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 8:58 pm
64710 spacer
>>64709
I love this cunt. Honestly, I don't even know what draws me to him.
>> No. 64711 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 9:27 pm
64711 spacer
>>64709
I like how he ended it with all the things he doesn't have.
>> No. 64712 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 10:04 pm
64712 spacer
>>64711
I'm sure a billionaire has more brains than you.
>> No. 64713 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 10:08 pm
64713 spacer
>>64712
Doubtful, I have like, at least 5 in my shed.
>> No. 64721 Anonymous
9th August 2015
Sunday 8:33 pm
64721 spacer
It's always gratifying when the progressive nonsense of the progressives bites them in the ass, this is what happens when the rabid pets of the left are let off their leash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnbwUT7lBg
>> No. 64722 Anonymous
9th August 2015
Sunday 9:52 pm
64722 spacer
>>64721
The Democrats get open rallies they attend interrupted by the left's most vacuous morons, who are roundly denounced and end up apologising. The Republicans have the right's most vacuous moron invited on stage with them and leading the polls.

Pretty clear who's being bitten in the ass harder here mate.
>> No. 64724 Anonymous
9th August 2015
Sunday 10:33 pm
64724 spacer

beta bernie.jpg
647246472464724
>>64722
They're not denounced and have done this more than once now, the narrative is that Bernie is a racist, and it's fucking hilarious.>>64722
>> No. 64731 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 12:28 am
64731 spacer
>>64724
The crowd booed them, a search for the ridiculous "#bowdownbernie" hashtag that their press release tried to start reveals that it has almost exclusively been mentioned in negative tweets, and the Black Lives Matter Seattle twitter feed tweeted out an apology. This is just some twats disrupting a small pre-rally.

The narrative isn't that Sanders is a racist. The narrative they're trying to promote is that America is a white supremacist society and none of the candidates are doing anything to address it. The reason that they're targeting Sanders is that he's by far the most progressive candidate, and they're making the point that even he isn't doing what they want and isn't "on their side". The fact that he attends open rallies and doesn't go around with the Secret Service protection that someone like Hilary has also helps.

It's really damn stupid and goes to prove how poisonous identity politics can be, but until those twats seek the democratic nomination and become frontrunners, there's no comparison to the dumbfuckery that is the Republican part right now.
>> No. 64733 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 12:57 am
64733 spacer

black gratitude.jpg
647336473364733
>>64731
Scores of blacks on social media are calling Bernie a racist, in case you're not aware in this current climate that's all that's necessary for you to be ostracized, it doesn't matter if he's helped the black community, it doesn't matter if you bring a rational argument, he's an old white man and that alone is enough for him to be tarred a racist.

I hope you enjoy this monster you've created.
>> No. 64734 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:01 am
64734 spacer
A brief reminder that Trump is currently the leading Republican candidate, and his favourability ratings are massively net negative, especially among women, who are more likely to vote than men. Unless the herd thins out before the primary races kick off in earnest, they're fucked.
>> No. 64735 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:31 am
64735 spacer
>>64733
Considering he's been "ostracized", it's strange that he's doing far, far better than anybody expected when he announced his candidacy. It's almost as if the community who seriously hold the view that he's a racist is a tiny, fringe minority...

I would be greatly amused to hear of my role in the creation of that minority, though, please do go on.

>>64734
It's 15 months to the election. The closer it comes, the more people will start to actually pay attention, and the less of an advantage Trump gets from sheer name recognition. Also, note that his poll numbers will not translate 1:1 to his share of the vote from caucus and primary attendees. Turnout there is more representative of more dedicated and/or party-minded party members (i.e. not the type of people who are impressed by TV celebrity tough guy).

Something interesting about the post debate poll numbers is that if you add up Trump, Cruz, and Carson's (who currently occupy 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place respectively, and are the "outsiders" of this cycle) share of the vote you still only get 47%. And it's notable that Carson's share of would probably end up shifting to another evangelical like Santorum or Huckabee than Trump. Cruz is the only candidate whose supporters would significantly filter into Trump's camp following his dropping out (although Cruz is betting on the opposite happening, which is a much more likely scenario and probably explains why he's had nothing but good things to say about Trump, even as the other candidates try to tear him down).

So yeah, it's hilarious to see Trump make the process so torturous for them, but Hilary Clinton is not a good enough person to be so favoured by God that he delivers the Donald as her opponent.
>> No. 64736 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:33 am
64736 spacer
>>64733
Clearly, Trump's reign is hugely preferable to a world in which scores of people are freely allowed to be wrong on social media
>> No. 64737 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:44 am
64737 spacer
Doesn't look like the Koch brothers are backing him so far.
>> No. 64738 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:52 am
64738 spacer
>>64737
Why would they when their wholly owned subsidiary Scott Walker is in the running?
>> No. 64739 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 2:39 am
64739 spacer
>>64735
>It's 15 months to the election.
Which the candidates can't really think about until the nomination is sown up. The convention is next July. The selection process starts in January. The Fox debate picked ten out of seventeen likely candidates. If the party wants to gain momentum, then they need to get that down to single figures. Otherwise they all end up starving each other of publicity.

>Also, note that his poll numbers will not translate 1:1 to his share of the vote from caucus and primary attendees. Turnout there is more representative of more dedicated and/or party-minded party members (i.e. not the type of people who are impressed by TV celebrity tough guy).
Not really. Where there are open primaries, his favourability numbers will hit him, whereas in the caucuses he will do well if his campaign continues to energise and enthuse people as it is now. Caucuses aren't like a committee meeting, where a specific group of people are invited and turn up. They're open to any party supporters, and are subject to turnout variation just like a ballot. Ron Paul outperformed both his opinion polls and primary results at caucuses because his supporters were more active. Most crucially, after Paul's antics last time (such as reports that his supporters were engaging in entryism to get themselves nominated as delegates even when a majority supported another candidate), the Republicans changed the rules so that effectively all delegates are bound and therefore if sent to the convention to vote for Trump can't see sense and vote for someone else instead. Unlike the Democrats, there's no massive bloc of senior figures that get to vote. At the Republican convention, there will be only three ex officio delegates from each state and territory. As a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary gets a vote in the Democratic convention, but the sitting Senators and Governors will not get a vote in the Republican convention.
>> No. 64740 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 3:04 am
64740 spacer
I thought the tumblrites with funny coloured hairs was only an online thing...
>> No. 64741 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 3:22 am
64741 spacer
>>64739
>The selection process starts in January
That's rather my point. The election, and the start of the primary season is pretty far off. It's not 2016 yet and there aren't that many people paying much attention to the race at this point. You don't need to pay much attention to know about Trump, thus Trump has benefited from name recognition and his higher profile. He will not have that advantage for much of the campaign proper.

>Not really
Yes really. Only 20% of Registered Republicans in Iowa turn up to the caucus. The reason Ron Paul performed so well in the caucuses is that his supporters were dedicated and organised. If you think Trump's supporters are activists on the scale of Paul's supporters or that the shitshow that is the Trump campaign (which still scarcely exists outside of the man himself and the recent hirings and immediate firings should show you how inept they've been at expansion) is capable of the same level of organisation and mobilisation, you're drastically misreading the source of his support. I would guess the opposite, and say he'll do better in primaries due to the lower effort required, although actually getting on the ballot in certain states could prove to be an obstacle.
>> No. 64743 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 10:38 am
64743 spacer
>>64741
>The election, and the start of the primary season is pretty far off
It really isn't. In the American electoral cycle, six months isn't very long at all.

As for the caucuses, 20% of party supporters is a lot of people. If we did that sort of thing here, we'd have constituency meetings with thousands of people turning up. Remember that being a "registered Republican" doesn't mean being a card-carrying paid-up member of the party. It's a matter of ticking the box on the voter registration. Typically, to carry a local caucus, you need a few vocal supporters to make a bit of noise at the venue, and sheer numbers through the door. Particularly with the new rules that say that caucuses are binding, and therefore the people you send up the chain must vote as they've been instructed by the caucus, this becomes easier with this many relatively sane candidates splitting each other's support.
>> No. 64744 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 11:07 am
64744 spacer
>>64741
>there aren't that many people paying much attention to the race at this point

It was only the most viewed thing ever shown on cable that isn't a sport, whether you like him or not (and you're clearly upset) Trump has got the people excited.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/business/media/republican-debate-draws-24-million-viewers.html
>> No. 64745 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 2:15 pm
64745 spacer
>>64743
It is, however, long enough that the "don't knows" are still relatively high in polling.

I didn't say 20% wasn't a lot of people, I said it's comprised of the most dedicated party supporters, and that that is not likely to include the devotees of Mr Trump in proportion to people who say they like him in a poll.

Why do you keep posting rules of caucuses apropos of nothing? You realise you're not the only one who can read the green papers?

>>64744
It was highly viewed for the spectacle of Trump, not just amongst Republican primary viewers. It doesn't mean primary voters are making actual decisions at this point.
>> No. 64748 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 3:30 pm
64748 spacer
>>64745
>I said it's comprised of the most dedicated party supporters, and that that is not likely to include the devotees of Mr Trump
And you were wrong on both counts.

>apropos of nothing?
Oh dear, lad. It's almost as if you haven't been paying attention to the very conversation you're taking part in.
>> No. 64749 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 3:36 pm
64749 spacer
>>64748
>And you were wrong on both counts.
We'll see!
>> No. 64750 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 4:33 pm
64750 spacer
>>64749
There's no seeing to do. You said things that were simply wrong, and no future event will make them less wrong.
>> No. 64751 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 5:24 pm
64751 spacer
>>64750
Oh boy, you sure showed me with that well reasoned argument of "you are wrong".
>> No. 64752 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 5:47 pm
64752 spacer
>>64751
Welcome to /pol/.
>> No. 64753 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 5:59 pm
64753 spacer
>>64751
To be fair, it was easier than simply repeating the correct answer that you'd already been given but dismissed out of hand. But I guess we could run with that if you like.
>> No. 64754 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 6:31 pm
64754 spacer
>>64753
Except there was no answer to anything I've actually said. If you have an explanation of why you apparently dispute the idea that caucus goers are the most engaged in their party, and also why Trump's ~25% support in August polls (which means absolutely nothing, as notable non-Presidents Rick Perry and Rudy Giuliani, among many others, will tell you) will translate to votes in a caucus in February despite the fact that there's fuck all organisation for his supporters to engage with, please do feel free to go on.
>> No. 64756 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 6:55 pm
64756 spacer

bzEDnZw[1].png
647566475664756
Apparently even some of Trump's supporters don't actually like the man.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_81015.pdf
>> No. 64764 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 8:16 am
64764 spacer
>>64733

I'm thankful everyday that America exists as a dump for Soros funds in these kind of fake activist movements, else it would be lavished so lovingly completely and entirely upon us.
>> No. 64765 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 8:46 am
64765 spacer
>>64733

This is painful to read.
That person clearly doesn't know what Martain Luther King stood for, or who shot him.
>> No. 64766 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 10:06 am
64766 spacer
>>64765

Spoken like a true white man.
>> No. 64767 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 11:38 am
64767 spacer

bernie cuckie.jpg
647676476764767
>>64766
>> No. 64768 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 11:42 am
64768 spacer
Race aside, letting a couple of women steal your own damn podium from you shows laughable weakness, who'd want someone like that negotiating with Putin or middle eastern strongmen?

At least Trump wouldn't be such a doormat, that's for sure.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqOlOdHHoEM
>> No. 64769 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 3:25 pm
64769 spacer
>>64768

Putin doesn't negotiate, and there are no "middle eastern strongmen", just an endless succession of weak ones. That's one reason it's on fire all the time.

Being totally disagreeable and completely aloof doesn't make you a good diplomat.
>> No. 64770 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 3:30 pm
64770 spacer
>>64768
Not terribly weak, considering that Bernie is the only one willing to attend open rallies with basically zero security. Doubt Trump has the balls to do that.
>> No. 64771 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 5:59 pm
64771 spacer
>>64770
He could, and when the funny hair coloured women turn up and get shot at by the oath keepers, then you would still be complaining like the little bitch your mother raised.
>> No. 64772 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 6:04 pm
64772 spacer
>>64771

Did you really just call someone a "little bitch" on a Bretonic shed discussion board? Do you even see yourself right now?
>> No. 64777 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 4:39 pm
64777 spacer
Oh god this is too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz3YvE_FHXY
>> No. 64778 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 5:52 pm
64778 spacer
>>64777

What an awful post. You could at least have found out to embed a video, you goob.
>> No. 64783 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 6:35 pm
64783 spacer
>>64778
I know how to embed videos, I just didn't think it was good enough to merit it, as you cruelly pointed out.
>> No. 64784 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 6:40 pm
64784 spacer
>>64783

Your tears nourish my brood.
>> No. 64792 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 7:50 pm
64792 spacer
>>64777
Why did they do that?
>> No. 64804 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 8:58 pm
64804 spacer
>>64792
Why did who do what?
>> No. 64805 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 9:36 pm
64805 spacer
>>64804
Why did they do that? You know, them, in the video. Why did they do that?
>> No. 64806 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 9:49 pm
64806 spacer
>>64777
I'm trying to understand the logic here. Is it just "Bernie is an old white man, and therefore a bad person" or something like that or is there something deeper? It's just that of all the major party candidates he's likely to be one that offers them the best prospects. Apart possibly from Lincoln Chafee, except for the part where he has practically no support.
>> No. 64807 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 10:28 pm
64807 spacer
>>64806
Identity politics will be the death of the democratic process. Those cunts in the video don't have the mental capacity to understand what you said. What matters to them is the attention they received for being cunts. Nothing more, nothing less.
>> No. 64808 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 10:33 pm
64808 spacer
>>64806
A couple of reasons. For one, Bernie has been giving the same speech to as many people as possible for 40 years. He now has a nationwide pulpit from which to give that speech, and as a result is likely reluctant to turn down speaking engagements regardless of how amateurish the organisation and security is (note that these incidents have taken place at third party events where Bernie was speaking, not at events managed by Bernie's campaign).

Speaking of his nationwide pulpit, that's another reason: he's big news. The Democratic primary was supposed to be a race only in theory: it was meant to be a walk in the park for Hilary. Suddenly Bernie looks like he has a shot ("looks like" being an important qualification here) and he's all over the place. If you want to draw attention to your cause, you might as well do it where cameras are already pointed.

Lastly, they know that he offers them the best prospects. They're purposely going after him to highlight the fact that they find even that insufficient.

Personally, I think they're fucking morons who couldn't be doing anything more poisonous to their own cause, but the idea that they're doing it because they hate all white people is just plain ill-informed.
>> No. 64915 Anonymous
18th August 2015
Tuesday 5:20 pm
64915 spacer
So they're deliberately only confronting Bernie and not Hilary are they? What a load of bullshit all your analyses turned out to be eh.

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/18/watch_black_lives_matter_activists_confront_hillary_clinton_you_dont_tell_black_people_what_we_need_to_know/
>> No. 64981 Anonymous
19th August 2015
Wednesday 12:30 pm
64981 spacer
>>64915
>So they're deliberately only confronting Bernie and not Hilary are they?
Er, no?
>> No. 64986 Anonymous
19th August 2015
Wednesday 10:09 pm
64986 spacer
Very prescient.

https://youtu.be/Wgxlp2UJI5I?t=869
>> No. 64987 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 12:33 am
64987 spacer

trump ben.jpg
649876498764987
>Our latest national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely Republican Voters now think Trump is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee next year

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_change

>poll finds Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump by just 6 points, a dramatic tightening since July. Trump is the one of three Republican candidates who have been matched against Clinton multiple times in CNN/ORC polling to significantly whittle the gap between himself and the Democratic frontrunner. He trailed Clinton by 16 points in a July poll

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/index.html?eref=rss_politics
>> No. 64988 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 12:53 am
64988 spacer
My money's on Deez Nuts in North Carolina.
>> No. 64989 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 8:02 am
64989 spacer
>>64987
Scenes when that syrup-wearing mug is the most powerful man in the world
>> No. 64997 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 9:47 am
64997 spacer
>>64988
u wot m8
>> No. 65001 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 3:11 pm
65001 spacer

DeezNuts.jpg
650016500165001
>>64997
>> No. 65002 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 3:35 pm
65002 spacer
>>65001
Hypothetical poll a year before the candidates are known produces odd result shocker.
>> No. 65003 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 6:26 pm
65003 spacer
>>65002
I believe he was illustrating who "Deez Nuts" is, not making a serious prediction based on current polling.
>> No. 65004 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 7:09 pm
65004 spacer
>>65003
I was merely pre-empting the inevitable.
>> No. 65006 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 8:36 pm
65006 spacer
I think he has a chance you know. He has authenticity, or at least the perception of it, and the idea that he's too rich to be corruptible seems to be widespread. He wants to create a stronger and more confident America at a time when Obama's perceived weakness, the growing threat of China and a resurgent and militarist Russia all seem to be bearing down on the American psyche. I doubt all latinos would be put off by his rhetoric either, it surprises me how often I encounter second-generation immigrants who having adopted the native culture look down upon new arrivals who don't share it.

Still I'll make no predictions. I remember when that black pizza mogul was looking to be the next Big Thing until being trumped (sorry) by a sex scandal. Anything can happen.
>> No. 65007 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 10:32 pm
65007 spacer
>>65006

In other words, he's the personification of America's mid-life crisis and insecurity at declining global credibility.

He will get in because Americans will never stomach the idea of not being the greatest country in the world, but he's only going to make them feel all the more embarrassed when they wake up the morning after and realise what a tit they were acting.

I hate to be so cynical but the future of planet Earth just gets bleaker by the day.
>> No. 65008 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 10:47 pm
65008 spacer
>>65007
Ultron was right. Vote Ultron.
>> No. 65009 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 12:34 am
65009 spacer
>>65006
He's quite popular among black Americans too. More so than you'd expect anyway, because they believe he actually has some bollocks.
>> No. 65010 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 1:18 am
65010 spacer
>>65009
That's one of the things throwing off a lot of liberals and some people within the GOP. How can a good chunk of black people and Hispanics (mostly 2nd generation or more) be okay with Trump and the GOP?
>> No. 65011 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 3:05 am
65011 spacer
>>65010
Whatever the reason, I hope those liberals get a nice fat smack.
>> No. 65012 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 4:19 am
65012 spacer
>>65011
Why? Are you a racist?
>> No. 65038 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 6:19 pm
65038 spacer
>>65006
>I think he has a chance you know. He has authenticity, or at least the perception of it
The eventual nominee won't win with authenticity, and won't win by coming top of a poll in August. He will win by being awarded delegates next year, and there is precisely zero reason to believe that Trumps's performance so far is indicative of an ability to do so.
>> No. 65039 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 6:46 pm
65039 spacer
>>65012
A bit, not that it's relevant to my post.
>> No. 65048 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 8:08 pm
65048 spacer
>>65038
>there is precisely zero reason to believe that Trumps's performance so far is indicative of an ability to do so.
Apart from all those reasons to believe it, of course. There are plenty of things that rule him in, but not very much to rule him out yet. Not least that he has a level of support at this point on the same order as John McCain and Hillary Clinton had at this point in the 2008 cycle. You might remember that he got the nomination, and she fell at the final hurdle. That other candidates have had similar levels of support and gone nowhere is neither here nor there. They didn't get the nomination because other candidates prevented them from getting it. We can't write him off at this stage, because it's not entirely clear that he has no chance at all, neither is it clear that anyone in particular is going to stop him winning. Don't make the mistake of thinking that it's a long way away - it's 4-5 months to the first step, which in American electoral terms is no time at all.
>> No. 65053 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:01 pm
65053 spacer
>>65038
He's threatened to run as an independent candidate if the Republican party isn't 'nice' to him. He can certainly afford that threat and it'd split the vote enough to doom any Republican challenger so they'll have to take him seriously at some point. If it wasn't for that I'd wholly agree with you.
>> No. 65054 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:05 pm
65054 spacer
>>65048
>That other candidates have had similar levels of support and gone nowhere is neither here nor there
... Yes, that's why I'm saying that the performance of other candidates in the past has had nothing to do with how they poll months before the first primary.

>it's 4-5 months to the first step, which in American electoral terms is no time at all
Wow, that sure is an impressive, pithy little phrase. What precisely is it supposed to mean though?
>> No. 65057 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:06 pm
65057 spacer
>>65053
The Republicans already have a rock solid strategy to beat him. It's called "voting".
>> No. 65058 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:18 pm
65058 spacer
>>65054
>Yes, that's why I'm saying that the performance of other candidates in the past has had nothing to do with how they poll months before the first primary.
Which doesn't really say anything. It doesn't say he can win it. More importantly, contrary to your assertion, it doesn't say he can't win it either.

>Wow, that sure is an impressive, pithy little phrase. What precisely is it supposed to mean though?
Here, let me help you out:
>it's 4-5 months to the first step
It's 4-5 months to the first step.
>which in American electoral terms
I'm speaking in American electoral terms.
>is no time at all
In those terms, it's no time at all.

Did that help?
>> No. 65060 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:29 pm
65060 spacer
>>65057
I'm not sure if you understood my post, lad.
>> No. 65061 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:30 pm
65061 spacer
>>65058
>Which doesn't really say anything. It doesn't say he can win it. More importantly, contrary to your assertion, it doesn't say he can't win it either.
Except I never made that assertion. I said that there is zero reason to believe that he can win based on his polling performance so far, not that his polling performance so far is reason to believe he can't win.

The reasons to believe that he can't win are that he doesn't have a real base, or organisation, or endorsements. But that's beside the point.

>Did that help?
Not really, no. I'm not asking you to repeat it, I'm asking you to expand upon and explain it.
>> No. 65063 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:34 pm
65063 spacer
>>65060
I do. My point is that they can beat him quite handily while still treating him "nicely". If you think that people who are enthusiastic about Trump are also enthusiastic about sitting in a room with other voters for potentially hours listening to nominating speeches (which is what a caucus entails), you are grossly overestimating the man's supporters.
>> No. 65064 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:43 pm
65064 spacer
>>65063
>My point is that they can beat him quite handily while still treating him "nicely".
I think the part you may have missed is that he's not the one they need to beat. Many senior figures in the party remember 1992 all too well.
>> No. 65065 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:53 pm
65065 spacer
>>65064
They didn't lose because of a third party in 1992.
>> No. 65066 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:58 pm
65066 spacer
that idiot is not going to be president of anything.

take a look at this hair.

also the last name trump sounds like an elephants dick

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 65067 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 10:01 pm
65067 spacer

trump.png
650676506765067
>>65066
>that idiot is not going to be president of anything.
Incorrect.
>> No. 65068 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 10:02 pm
65068 spacer
>>65067
The best kind of correct.
>> No. 65069 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 10:27 pm
65069 spacer
>>65065
Clinton won 21 states, worth 209/370 electoral votes, by a margin of less than half Perot's vote. While Perot was taking votes from both sides, he was certainly taking more from Bush than he was from Clinton. Of those 209, Bush would only have needed to win 101. Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee were worth 53 alone. While Perot wasn't a complete spoiler, there was undoubtedly some spoiler effect there.
>> No. 65070 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 10:51 pm
65070 spacer
>>65069
Nope.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/08/perot-seen-not-affecting-vote-outcome/27500538-cee8-4f4f-8e7f-f3ee9f2325d1/

This was bullshit 23 years ago, and it's still bullshit today.
>> No. 65078 Anonymous
25th August 2015
Tuesday 11:16 pm
65078 spacer
>>65070
Whether or not Perot was a spoiler doesn't really matter, because the one thing that is certain is that an independent Trump would be. His favourability among registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters is in the negative double digits. If he runs, realistically he's going to be taking votes away mostly from one side. He wouldn't need to take anywhere near Perot's shares to do some damage - marginal states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Ohio account for a significant number of electoral votes.

Meanwhile, over on the other side of the aisle, Joe Biden has announced rather late in the game that he's thinking about possibly throwing his hat into the ring, maybe.
>> No. 65079 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 12:00 am
65079 spacer
>>65078
Yeah, that's why they don't want him to run third party almost as much as they don't want him running for their nomination.
>> No. 65080 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 12:11 am
65080 spacer
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/state-gop-leaders-plot-to-tie-donald-trumps-hands-121696.html#ixzz3js4un9LF

>The Virginia and North Carolina parties are in discussions about implementing a new requirement for candidates to qualify for their primary ballots: that they pledge to support the Republican presidential nominee — and not run as a third-party candidate — in the general election.

Hmm, wonder who that's aimed at...
>> No. 65093 Anonymous
27th August 2015
Thursday 5:39 am
65093 spacer

4L8H8aw.png
650936509365093
Ouch.
>> No. 65129 Anonymous
7th September 2015
Monday 10:37 pm
65129 spacer
Has anyone actually ever been to America? I mean, do we really know for certain it's a real place and not some fiction you only ever hear about on the news when they want some comic relief?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0jOVv0qu3M
>> No. 65130 Anonymous
7th September 2015
Monday 10:50 pm
65130 spacer
>>65129
I was taken to "America" by my parents when I was younger, but it could have just been a big theme park. We went to Compton and saw black people dancing on a street corner, and despite being the whitest, most-middle class family you've ever seen, we did not experience any danger at all. So I can only assume that it was all an elaborate stage.
>> No. 65131 Anonymous
7th September 2015
Monday 10:50 pm
65131 spacer
>>65129


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIyXJxPFVz4
>> No. 65132 Anonymous
7th September 2015
Monday 10:52 pm
65132 spacer
>>65131

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOfIDtvfmqg
>> No. 65133 Anonymous
8th September 2015
Tuesday 11:50 am
65133 spacer
>>65129
I've been for an extended duration, in California mind you, and it's a mix of very pleasant, very nice people, to utter fucking twats.

The nice pleasant people know how fucked the country is, and how badly it's run, but they are too busy working and worrying about the colour of their lawns to actually take part in preventing the twats from going into power.

I didn't meet too much dumb cunts, but then again, I wasn't looking for them. One thing that struck me was the disingenuous types that are overly-friendly and have a saccharine sort of altruism - I don't get this. The only plausible reason would be to look good in front of your mates, which in that case makes you the cuntiest of cunts.
>> No. 65136 Anonymous
8th September 2015
Tuesday 4:13 pm
65136 spacer
>>65133
>One thing that struck me was the disingenuous types that are overly-friendly and have a saccharine sort of altruism - I don't get this.
I have them down as serial killers. Seriously, a lot of the fake friendliness and insincere smiling put me off a lot of them. Made me a very cynical and hateful person while I was there. I did not enjoy my holiday, unless I was by myself and surrounded by nature.

Maybe I'm just a misanthrope, but I seem to be doing fine on these isles.
>> No. 65137 Anonymous
8th September 2015
Tuesday 4:30 pm
65137 spacer
>>65136
No you're not, neither am I. It just came off so fake and transparent and it's a really prevalent trend, as noted by the odd story on reddit or whatever. Call me weird, but I find it very uncomfortable when for instance (as an example of a story) I'd be in the queue for a drive-through and someone decided to pay for my food whose in-front of me. It struck me as presumptuous and a bit rude to do that to a complete stranger. Not only that, but it's expected of YOU to return the favour as well.
>> No. 65141 Anonymous
8th September 2015
Tuesday 6:46 pm
65141 spacer
>>65132

That was awful.
>> No. 65151 Anonymous
9th September 2015
Wednesday 5:08 pm
65151 spacer
>>65141
Some people would prefer to listen to a professional misery guts from thirty years ago while complaining about old jokes. Each to their own, innit grandpa.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_x4_QrMcm8
>> No. 65191 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:20 am
65191 spacer

cnbc_perry_oops_111109c-615x345[1].jpg
651916519165191
Oops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34227778

One down.

Perry's campaign was haemorrhaging money and staff for weeks, I'm surprised he took this long to throw in the towel. Then again, he was deluded enough to think a pair of "I'm smart now, honestly" glasses could render him electable after his 2012 travesty, so why would one extra dash of delusion be surprising?
>> No. 65192 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:23 am
65192 spacer
Oh, also he's probably going to jail, so that would have made the duties of the Presidency quite cumbersome, all things considered.
>> No. 65367 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 3:52 pm
65367 spacer
>>65191
>Homophobic asshole unpopular

This just in, sky also blue and the theological leader of the Roman Catholic Church wears odd headgear.
>> No. 65368 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 6:02 pm
65368 spacer
>>65367
No lad. There are many ways a politician can make themselves unpalatable to Republican primary voters. Homophobia is not one of them.
>> No. 65400 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:38 am
65400 spacer
>>65368

>There are many ways a politician can make themselves unpalatable to Republican primary voters.

Not according to that blubbery mass of whatever people keep calling "Trump".
>> No. 65404 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:03 am
65404 spacer
>>65400
He's a reality TV star and real estate tycoon, not a politician.
>> No. 65407 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:01 pm
65407 spacer
Any Republican in office would be disastrous but Trump would be utterly catastrophic. The only reason I want to see Trump on the Republican ticket is because it might, just MIGHT inspire the Democrats to put up someone interesting.

Sanders is by far a better choice than Hillary - Hillary is just business as usual for America, which is bad for America and bad for the world - but honestly I'm not a fan of Sanders either.
>> No. 65412 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:36 pm
65412 spacer
I don't know why you all find him so unpalatable.
>> No. 65418 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:42 pm
65418 spacer
>>65412
He's an incoherent narcissist with less substance than a eunuch's ejaculate.
>> No. 65420 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:48 pm
65420 spacer
>>65418
So a perfect fit for the presidency then.
>> No. 65426 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:02 pm
65426 spacer
I feel like America isn't even taking itself seriously anymore, what with Trump and now Kanye West announcing his 2020 presidential run.
>> No. 65427 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:02 pm
65427 spacer
>>65418
Why do you say that?
>> No. 65428 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:09 pm
65428 spacer
>>65427
Presumably he said it because it's true.
>> No. 65433 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:17 pm
65433 spacer
>>65428
That's not a reason to say something.
>> No. 65437 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:26 pm
65437 spacer
>>65433
>saying something because it's true is not a reason to say something

Well, I think that's just about enough /pol/ for one day.
>> No. 65438 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:28 pm
65438 spacer
>>65437
Christ.
>> No. 65445 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 3:39 pm
65445 spacer
>>65427
Someone expressed confusion about why others may find him unpalatable, so I responded with my reasons.

"Unpalatable" is perhaps the wrong word for my take though, personally I think he's hilarious and the absolute chaos and destruction he's leaving in his wake for the eventual nominee to clean up is more entertaining than even 2012's clown car.
>> No. 65449 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 4:33 pm
65449 spacer
>>65412
He's beating the leftist media at their own game and making the moderates in his party look like milquetoast saps, so he's evidently worse than Hitler.
>> No. 65454 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 5:46 pm
65454 spacer
>>65412
Despite people saying that they dislike career politicians who won't say anything that might offend someone, and who seem like a blank slate that don't stand for anything, the fact is they want that. If they come face to face with what they really want, i.e. a politician who doesn't really give a shit about offending people, stands for something, and doesn't care either way if you find him abhorrent or not, they will have a teary.
>> No. 65455 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 5:53 pm
65455 spacer
>>65454

You seem to be confusing people with the media.
>> No. 65458 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:15 pm
65458 spacer
>>65455
The media doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most of what we consume is what we want. If you want to know how people are in a country, just have a look at their media.
>> No. 65460 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:29 pm
65460 spacer
>>65449
The "leftist media" are not taking on Donald Trump. He is ratings gold, they fucking love him.

The only "moderate" running is Kasich (and possibly Pataki, but who cares). Bush is a conservative who is intelligent, experienced enough, and has enough of an instinct for self-preservation that he knows that throwing pointless red meat soundbites to the base who will vote Republican anyway at the expense of making yourself poisonous to the overall electorate is counter-productive as all fuck.

What policies proposed by Trump do you believe make his fellow candidates look moderate in comparison?
>> No. 65461 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:42 pm
65461 spacer
>>65458
>The media doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most of what we consume is what we want. If you want to know how people are in a country, just have a look at their media.

Do you not think it's a bit more complicated than that? Do you not think reckon the media have the power to influence and sway opinion?

I'd agree that people will lap up lowest common denominator shite but I'd argue that it's more of a feedback loop that feeds into itself and amps up. Not either or but both, people will happily read, watch, consume simplistic reactionary bullshit but also the media will play on this in order to frame debates and push certain narratives whilst containing others.

Sage for /boo/.
>> No. 65462 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:46 pm
65462 spacer
>>65461
There might be an element of that, although minute. The way I see it is that it is a business, and it wants to sell to make a profit. A corner shop won't sell shite nobody is going to buy. The media is not shit in this country and in America, the people are.
>> No. 65463 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:47 pm
65463 spacer
>>65460
>What policies proposed by Trump do you believe make his fellow candidates look moderate in comparison?

The wall. Simple as that, Bush's stance on immigration is no different to that of the Democrats in any real way, he's also got all the charisma of an unwashed sock and probably has a lower IQ than his brother.

A moderate is not going to win an election for the Republicans, people in the party that want them to run a bland, lifeless camwhore like Bush (and surely this is what liberals desire, someone they can throw shit at and know it will stick, like with Romney) either have no recollection of the last two cycles or are just in the pocket of the donors. These "Conservatives" don't care about winning, they care about the status quo, and if that means losing, so be it.
>> No. 65469 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:55 pm
65469 spacer
Trump will get republicans out to vote and if he's the nominee that's why he'll win.
>> No. 65478 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:07 pm
65478 spacer
>>65463
Hahahaha, "the wall".

For one thing, that's not a policy, that's a daydream.

For another, it's designed to ameliorate problems that don't exist (the crisis level tide of illegal immigration and supposed illegal immigrant crime wave are demonstrably not happening).

And you're quite correct to say that Republicans and Democrats agree on immigration. If it wasn't for Boehner getting cold feet and deciding that he'd actually quite like to keep his job, thank you very much, Rubio and the rest of the Gang of 8 would have passed reform. Considering that a pro immigration stance is one of the incredibly rare values shared across the aisle, how do you imagine Trump would get his plan through congress?
>> No. 65480 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:14 pm
65480 spacer

you have chosen poorly.jpg
654806548065480
>>65469
The appeal of Trump is very simple, he's a straight talker, takes no shit from the media and says things a lot of the public agree with. He's dominant, people deep down have no trust or respect for guys like Bush.
>> No. 65482 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:17 pm
65482 spacer
>>65478
>Hahahaha, "the wall".

It's very doable, it's not a fantasy, people like you pretend it's harder than going to the moon.
>> No. 65483 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:18 pm
65483 spacer
>>65482
If you repeat 'Trump is a clown' enough then you don't even have to talk about things like the wall.
>> No. 65484 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:22 pm
65484 spacer
>>65463
Don't you have a golf course to build, Don?
>> No. 65486 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:31 pm
65486 spacer
>>65480
Holy hell. I thought that ugly goblin was his mother. What the hell is wrong with him? Fucking hell.
>> No. 65488 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:33 pm
65488 spacer
>>65482
I see you say "it's very doable", but I don't see you explain how it will be done, why it should be done, or how Trump will convince congress to allow it. Colour me sceptical!
>> No. 65491 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:36 pm
65491 spacer
>>65488
Maybe congress will become less "I don't want to offend people" after Trump wins, and pass the wall building act or whatever. Maybe an executive order. It should be done to stop illegal immigrants crossing the border, but also, and most importantly, to stop the flow of arms and drugs.

Israel built a wall. Saudi Nanookia is building a wall on its northern border. Wall building isn't something special, people have been doing it for centuries. Are you dense or something?
>> No. 65495 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:39 pm
65495 spacer
>>65469
Trump will get hispanics out to vote and if he's the nominee that's why he'll lose.
>> No. 65496 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:41 pm
65496 spacer
>>65495
I daresay he'd even turn off the Cubans in Florida with the sort of things he's coming out with.
>> No. 65499 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:43 pm
65499 spacer
>>65491

When the Sauds and the Israelis are your inspiration, maybe you're having the wrong dream.
>> No. 65503 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:54 pm
65503 spacer

CNnFJvUUYAAGp9L[1].jpg
655036550365503
>>65491
It's not about "not offending people", it's about not alienating a growing portion of the electorate in order to satisfy your shrinking and already solid base (see the picture), and not alienating your business donors who are very much pro-immigration. Executive order? You do know he's running for the Presidency, not the God-Emporerhood, yes? There are limits on what can be achieved via EOs, and they are subject to congressional approval if challenged.

And there's a decent body of evidence to show that strict border enforcement has indeed prevented illegal immigrants from crossing the border. That is, it stops those already in the States from returning across to Mexico. If you have any evidence to show that extending the walls across the entire border would have the effects desired, do share.
>> No. 65504 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:58 pm
65504 spacer
>>65499
Are you offended? As it stands, people like you wouldn't vote for a republican, let alone Trump. So people with your teary views don't really matter.
>> No. 65505 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:00 pm
65505 spacer
>>65504
Ah, yes "people like you wouldn't vote Republican anyway", a sound electoral strategy.
>> No. 65507 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:04 pm
65507 spacer
>>65503
Hispanic voting patterns don't deviate too much from the average. Your racist identity politics will be the end of the likes of you.

Oh, and you need evidence on how a fucking wall will stop immigrants, drugs and guns? Haha.
>> No. 65508 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:05 pm
65508 spacer
>>65505
It is. What you want is some sort of politician who doesn't stand for anything but will promise everyone anything they want. Do fuck off.
>> No. 65509 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:06 pm
65509 spacer

487582075-475552.jpg
655096550965509
>>65507
>Oh, and you need evidence on how a fucking wall will stop immigrants, drugs and guns?
Yes. Yes, we do.
>> No. 65510 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:09 pm
65510 spacer
"The Israelis have spent over a decade constructing a 440km wall to separate themselves from an area turned into a constant low-intensity warzone by their occupation. That's clearly proof that the USA easily can and should build a 3000km wall to separate themselves from a peaceful ally!"

There are no words.
>> No. 65511 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:09 pm
65511 spacer
>>65509

I've no dog in this fight, but do appear to have provided a picture of a wall not stopping immigrants.
>> No. 65512 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:10 pm
65512 spacer
>>65511

but you do appear*
>> No. 65513 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:11 pm
65513 spacer

trump wall.jpg
655136551365513
>>65509
That's not a wall m8, it's a tiny fence.
>> No. 65514 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:11 pm
65514 spacer
>>65511
Yes. In response to the suggestion that it was ridiculous that we'd need evidence that walls stop immigrants.
>> No. 65515 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:12 pm
65515 spacer
>>65510
>Mexico
>peaceful

"No".
>> No. 65516 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:12 pm
65516 spacer
>>65514

Err, I was just pointing that out.

Honest, I'm not an idiot.
>> No. 65517 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:13 pm
65517 spacer
>>65509
Who is we lad? I'm sure a wall in the middle of a desert, with armed border guards doing the rounds will stop illegal immigrants and criminals. So stop being offended and having a teary.

You haven't explained to me why you don't want a wall, and why you would want America to get overrun with immigrants, criminals and drugs?

>>65510
Nice one lad.
>> No. 65519 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:15 pm
65519 spacer
>>65517
>I'm sure a wall in the middle of a desert, with armed border guards doing the rounds will stop illegal immigrants and criminals.
You mean like how in that picture, the wall, with its armed border guards doing the rounds, is stopping all those illegal immigrants and criminals?
>> No. 65520 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:16 pm
65520 spacer
>>65507
Actually, hispanic voting patterns differ wildly from white voting patterns. Over 70% of hispanics voted for Obama in 2012 vs. 39% of non-hispanic whites.

And Trump will by all accounts only deepen the gap, see >>65093

And yes, "I intuitively feel like this will work" is not a sound basis for policy making, so some evidence would be a boon!
>> No. 65523 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:20 pm
65523 spacer

4557470157beb43c177e404ef973d487.550x407x1[1].jpg
655236552365523
>>65517
>why you would want America to get overrun with immigrants
Bit late to stop that mate.
>> No. 65524 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:21 pm
65524 spacer
>>65520
Obama was an exception. Hispanics never voted for one candidate like that since Clinton. So yes, it does not wildly differ.

You are also not taking into account how they will be more likely to vote for a republic the more college educated, older, and middle-class they become.

I will give you a study on how walls stop immigrants, criminals and drugs, when you give me a study on how your front door stops people from coming into your house.
>> No. 65526 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:22 pm
65526 spacer
>>65523
Low grade.
>> No. 65527 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:22 pm
65527 spacer
Holy shit, people actually believe in the wall idea?
>> No. 65528 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:22 pm
65528 spacer
>>65510
Nice. Pro-Zionist liberal.
>> No. 65529 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:23 pm
65529 spacer
>>65517
People asking you to back up idiotic claims doesn't make them offended, pal.
>> No. 65531 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:25 pm
65531 spacer
>>65529
Dry your eyes mate.
>> No. 65535 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:37 pm
65535 spacer
>>65524
It's in evidence outside of Presidential elections (Hispanics went 62% Dem in the 2014 midterms, compared to 38% of whites), and even the relatively immigrant friendly Bush lost the Hispanic vote, with 53% of their votes going to Kerry, compared to 41% of white votes. So it's a long term trend, it's growing, but the man who has made famously inflammatory remarks about hispanic immigrants and who has phenomenal unfavourably ratings among hispanics is going to reverse the trend? What?

>give me a study on how your front door stops people from coming into your house
I will do exactly that the minute I start advocating a multi-billion dollar front door policy! "It seems obvious to me" is not an argument, it's not evidence.
>> No. 65536 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:43 pm
65536 spacer
>>65535
Not him, but a party that's losing because of Hispanics should just become Democrat-lite and open the floodgates, instead of trying to halt, or reverse the situation? Where the fuck is the logic in that? And there's more whites in America than hispanics, are we supposed to just ignore their wishes and defer to the minority?

The biggest problems with Republicans is that a lot of them listen to the advice their enemy gives them.
>> No. 65537 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:45 pm
65537 spacer
Also remember that there are two kinds of Hispanics in the US. There are the Central Americans and Carribeans, and then there are the Cubans. The rest tend to vote for the Democrats overwhelmingly, but the Cubans tend to vote Republican as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and everything that followed. I daresay some of his rhetoric is also pissing off the Cubans, which would be some fucking achievement.
>> No. 65540 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:00 pm
65540 spacer
>>65536
They aren't losing because of hispanic immigration, they're losing because the base of old white people is dying off and the ethnic makeup of younger generations is more diverse. Even if you stopped all immigration tomorrow, hispanics would still continue to reach voting age, still have kids, and boomers would still be dying off.

Why must "the situation" be halted or reversed precisely? Which Democratic policies do you see to represent an opening of the floodgates?
>> No. 65546 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:15 pm
65546 spacer
>>65540
You haven't given an answer on what the Republicans ought to do, just copy the Democrats? And the whole situation is out of control, has been for decades, under both parties. They weren't even 2% of the population at the end of the war, now we're approaching the 20% mark, you're an idiot if you think this is what the white population, or the black population for that matter, want.

Only the wealthy benefit from it, and only them and the useful idiots defend it.
>> No. 65549 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:24 pm
65549 spacer
>>65546
I don't really give a fuck what they do, I'm merely pointing out that if they want to get elected, nominating a man whose entire candidacy is centred on the demonization of an increasingly important demographic is perhaps not a smart move.

What's out of control? What chaos does living in a country with people whose ancestors came from the Iberian peninsula instead of Northern Europe bring to the lives of white Americans?

Is it the same kind of chaos that the Irish brought? Because I think they got over that. Who knows, maybe they'll do the same again!
>> No. 65556 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:57 pm
65556 spacer
>>65549

Mass immigration causes increased competition for jobs and housing. New jobs will be created (perhaps) and new houses will be built, but this happens more slowly than the increase in population. This means the quality of life of the existing residents is damaged.
>> No. 65557 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:00 pm
65557 spacer
>>65556
>Mass immigration causes increased competition for jobs and housing.
Except any number of attempts to prove this have failed. The intuitive solution apparently does not hold.
>> No. 65562 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:30 pm
65562 spacer
>>65557
There is a special place in hell for people who start their sentences with the word "except."
>> No. 65563 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:34 pm
65563 spacer
>>65562
You know what they say. If you can't argue the facts, bitch about the writing instead.
>> No. 65564 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:39 pm
65564 spacer
>>65563
I'm not the lad you are having a teary about. Calm down for a bit. Have a bit of tea, and Rich Tea biscuits.

And stop starting your sentences with "except."
>> No. 65565 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:44 pm
65565 spacer
>>65564
>And stop starting your sentences with "except."
Fuck off. If it's good enough for the OED, it's good enough for you.
>> No. 65566 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:46 pm
65566 spacer
>>65564
I'm not the lad you're telling to calm down, but he seems perfectly calm, and to boot actually making a decent point about the importance of content over style in an argument.
>> No. 65567 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:54 pm
65567 spacer
>>65566
I'm not following whatever they are crying about. I'm just trying to tell him to stop posting like he is an American, teenage girl on reddit.
>> No. 65569 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:09 pm
65569 spacer
>>65567
You're only supposed to do that to people who are actually posting like an American teenage girl on reddit.
>> No. 65570 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:12 pm
65570 spacer
>>65564
Don't start your sentences with "and", either. Or "don't", or "or".
>> No. 65573 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:15 pm
65573 spacer
>>65570
Miss Gillingham... Is that you?

God I miss her tits.
>> No. 65574 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:30 pm
65574 spacer
>>65570
And who exactly put you in charge of the language? Don't presume to prescribe the "correct" rules of English to others who are perfectly coherent without your "advice". Or if you insist on doing so, fuck off and do it somewhere else.

Except, of course, if you're a mod, in which case I wouldn't dare presume to contradict you.
>> No. 65575 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:34 pm
65575 spacer
>>65574
You did it again lad. Why are you being like this (an American teenage girl posting on Reddit)?
>> No. 65582 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 2:24 am
65582 spacer
>>65575
What's with your obsession with American teenage girls on Reddit, noncelad?
>> No. 65588 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 11:41 am
65588 spacer
>>65575
It's really not hard to work out, lad.
>> No. 65602 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 2:12 pm
65602 spacer
>>65463

>the charisma of an unwashed sock and probably has a lower IQ than his brother

Wasn't his brother actually estimated to have one of the highest IQs of any Presidents?
>> No. 65603 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 2:20 pm
65603 spacer
>>65480

Is it just me or does Donald Trump's wife look a bit too much like him? I thought that was his daughter at first. Didn't he also say that he would date/marry his own daughter or something?
>> No. 65605 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 3:40 pm
65605 spacer
>>65603
>Didn't he also say that he would date/marry his own daughter
Yes, he has said as much in public, and complimented her on her "figure", on no less than three occasions.
>> No. 65608 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 4:11 pm
65608 spacer
>>65602
Not as far as I'm aware of.

Bush wasn't the slack jawed yokel he was commonly portrayed as, but he certainly wasn't much more intelligent than the minimum required to go as far as he did. I don't know of any formal IQ tests, but he was an average to decent student at Yale, he didn't exactly display the intellectual prowess of a Rhodes Scholar like Clinton or a polymath like Teddy Roosevelt.
>> No. 65668 Anonymous
21st September 2015
Monday 9:19 pm
65668 spacer

walker_selfie[1].jpg
656686566865668
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/21/scott-walker-said-to-be-quitting-presidential-race/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

Turns out someone with zero charisma and a fucked up face running a campaign on an union busting record the base couldn't give any less of a shit about isn't a winning candidate.

Who knew.
>> No. 65669 Anonymous
22nd September 2015
Tuesday 11:43 pm
65669 spacer
>>65668
You say that like the Donald is attractive.
>> No. 65670 Anonymous
22nd September 2015
Tuesday 11:52 pm
65670 spacer
>>65669
He at least doesn't have the face of a doughy toby jug like Walker.

And is also not a winning candidate.
>> No. 65755 Anonymous
3rd October 2015
Saturday 6:40 am
65755 spacer

Bushpile[1].jpg
657556575565755
This is the best non-Trump related thing to come out of the race so far.

"My bro kept us safe, here's him standing on a mountain of rubble and corpses." Amazing.
>> No. 65756 Anonymous
3rd October 2015
Saturday 12:55 pm
65756 spacer
>>65755

Sometimes I feel as though, in an alternate reality, John Kerry was elected president in 2008 only to be impeached after the devastation of the 9/11 attacks in which 150 people died on American soil.
>> No. 65757 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 1:44 am
65757 spacer

rcpoct.png
657576575765757
As the Summer of Trump comes to a close, the Donald gives himself an out:

>"Number one — I'm not a masochist," he said. "And if I was dropping in the polls where I thought I wasn't gonna win, why would I continue?"

>"I'm doing great in the polls," Trump continued. "If I were doing poorly, if I saw myself going down, if you would stop calling me because you no longer had any interest in Trump because he was doing so poorly," he said, talking to NBC host Chuck Todd. "I'd go back to my business. I have no problem with that."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-polls-gop-race
>> No. 65758 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 2:54 am
65758 spacer
>>65757
He says, as his poll ratings drop ten points and his lead halves. Yet again he makes it known to all that he has the massive balls of solid stainless steel required to wear that thing on his head.
>> No. 65770 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 4:36 pm
65770 spacer
>>65758
> where I thought I wasn't gonna win
>> No. 65771 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 4:40 pm
65771 spacer
>>65770
SPOILER: he is not going to win, and there is a good chance that he, or at least his advisors, are aware of this fact.
>> No. 65772 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 5:15 pm
65772 spacer
>>65771
Why?
>> No. 65773 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 5:18 pm
65773 spacer
>>65771
Unlikely, but not impossible. By the same token: possible, but not likely. Go back in time eight years and a bet on Obama would get you offers in the three digit range.
>> No. 65786 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:47 pm
65786 spacer
>>65772
Because the people who think he has a shot are wildly overestimating the impact of public opinion and wildly underestimating the extent to which American political parties are capable of influencing their own primary races. The only metric by which Trump is in the lead is in polling (which is largely due to a cycle of his media exposure leading to more support, leading to more exposure, etc. in the first place). That is a very easy to understand metric, and intuitively gives the impression that he's got a good chance of winning, but the actual historical evidence demonstrates that national polling is not predictive at this stage in the race. At all. It does not become so until around Super Tuesday. State polling is different, it can become predictive in the weeks leading up to a primary/caucus, but it's still a bit of a crapshot. Iowa in 2012 was a great example of this: Romney led in Iowa for months, until Ron Paul took over in the weeks leading up to the caucus. In the end, Santorum, who was polling lower than the margin of error not long before the caucus, was the winner, coming a fraction of a percent ahead of Romney.

Leading the polls months before the primaries start has not historically been a characteristic of the eventual winners of the nomination. There are, broadly speaking, three things that are: the support of influential party actors, a traditional political background (e.g. VP, governor, senator, maybe general or cabinet level position at a push), and views in line with the party orthodoxy. That's why comparisons to Obama, like >>65773's, are misguided: Obama was not the favourite, but he was certainly considered presidential material by his party. He had already racked up an impressive list of endorsements at this point in the race, compared to Trump, whose endorsements come from a couple of state reps and Gary Busey.

There is an outside possibility that this is all wrong of course. Some people think this time it's different. Thing is though, that people who think "this time it's different" are almost always wrong.
>> No. 65787 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:48 pm
65787 spacer

9780226112374.jpg
657876578765787
There's a very good book on this subject which I'd recommend to anyone interested in the process.
>> No. 65789 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 7:49 pm
65789 spacer
>>65786
>He had already racked up an impressive list of endorsements at this point in the race
He really hadn't. By September 2007 he was nowhere to be seen. He literally wasn't on the radar. He came from nowhere to win Iowa. It was only really after that when the endorsements started rolling in.
>> No. 65790 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 7:50 pm
65790 spacer
>>65786
>Iowa in 2012 was a great example of this
Outliers occasionally happen shocker.
>> No. 65791 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:00 pm
65791 spacer
>>65790
Oh come the fuck on. A candidate endorsed by Kent Conrad and Dick Durbin isn't "on the radar"? 538 keeps a handy tally of current and past endorsements. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

As you can see, Obama had the second most endorsements of any Democratic candidate, behind Clinton. He had more at this point in the race than Jeb Bush does currently. He was very much "on the radar".
>> No. 65792 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:06 pm
65792 spacer
>>65790
... Yes, I am saying that state polling is more predictive than national polling but outliers still exist.
>> No. 65793 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:09 pm
65793 spacer
>>65791
>Obama had the second most endorsements of any Democratic candidate, behind Clinton.
That's like saying bumders make up the second most common sexuality behind straight people. In 2008, Hillary was orders of magnitude ahead of the competition until around March.
>> No. 65794 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:14 pm
65794 spacer
>>65792
You are saying that state polling is a crapshoot, and using as your evidence an outlier in a particularly difficult contest to predict. In states which use straightforward ballots, it does very well, as 538's own record attests.
>> No. 65795 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:16 pm
65795 spacer

clintonobamaendorsement.png
657956579565795
>>65793
You need to either take a look at that endorsement chart or look up what an order of magnitude is.
>> No. 65796 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:25 pm
65796 spacer
>>65794
The Iowa caucus is difficult to predict precisely because polling is the only thing to go on. See Howard Dean's collapse in 2004 for another example. Once the race is properly under way, the results of past primaries and caucuses can be used to form predictions, along with polling (which is likewise influenced by primary results and the narrative of "momentum") and a pattern properly starts to emerge.
>> No. 65797 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:25 pm
65797 spacer

clinton.png
657976579765797
>>65795
For illustration, we are here. Obama's endorsements were are in the tens, Clinton's were in the hundreds.
>> No. 65798 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:35 pm
65798 spacer
>>65796
No, the Iowa caucus is difficult to predict because it's a caucus. For a primary ballot, pollsters can just go out and ask people how they're likely to vote. The decision is made (usually) before the voter arrives at the polling station - they're merely turning up to commit it to paper. At caucuses, attendees engage in debate and discussion before making their decision - you could poll people on the door going in and still get it completely wrong.
>> No. 65799 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:43 pm
65799 spacer

clintonobamaendorsementdnc.png
657996579965799
>>65797
There are 600 possible endorsement points. Obama had 48 at this point in the race, Clinton, as is clear from that chart, had well under 50%, so less than 300.

For one number to be "orders of magnitude bigger" than another number, it has to be at least 100 times bigger. 48 is not 1% of 300, in case you weren't aware.

So, Clinton was at no point "orders of magnitude" ahead of her competition, let alone "until March". Obama was very much on the radar, and you are categorically talking out your arse.

>>65798
Yes, but other caucus results are easier to predict than Iowa because past primary/caucus results can be relied upon as predictive, and polling has "settled down", so to speak.
>> No. 65800 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 9:32 pm
65800 spacer
>>65799
>Obama had 48 at this point in the race, Clinton, as is clear from that chart, had well under 50%, so less than 300.
For those of us who aren't being deliberately obtuse, that's still a fucking massive margin.

>Yes, but other caucus results are easier to predict than Iowa because past primary/caucus results can be relied upon as predictive
You haven't managed to get your head around this whole "caucus" thing still, have you?
>> No. 65802 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:07 pm
65802 spacer
>>65800
It's a significant margin! But he did not by any means "come from nowhere". Note also that by February, Obama would rack up over 200 endorsements. So for those of us who are actually paying attention, your assertion that Clinton was "orders of magnitude ahead" of her rivals until March is plainly moronic.

To clarify, I am not saying that Obama's nomination wasn't an upset, I am saying it is not an upset compNanookle to a hypothetical Trump nomination.

As far as the caucuses go, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I have explained to you why the Iowa Caucus in particular is hard to predict. Caucuses in general are harder to predict than primaries, but Iowa presents unique difficulties. If you have an actual response, go ahead and make it, your posturing is very boring.
>> No. 65803 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:10 pm
65803 spacer
>>65802
*200 endorsement points, I mean, my mistake.
>> No. 65804 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:21 pm
65804 spacer
>>65802
>I have explained to you why the Iowa Caucus in particular is hard to predict.
No. You've posted a load of words purporting to explain why the Iowa caucus in partcular is hard to predict, but actually don't hold any truth. Caucuses are harder to predict, full stop. Availability of other results means nothing. That would be like saying that nobody could have any idea how our elections would turn out because the only indications they have before May are polls. That sort of argument is utterly moronic. The Iowa caucus isn't harder to predict because it's first. It's 100%, absolutely, entirely due to the mechanics of the thing. States where the caucus process involves aggregation are a bit easier, while those that involve multi-level selection processes are harder still, as the outcome of the initial meetings may not be the same as the county metings, which may not be the same as the final statewide convention. You may remember that the results in Iowa and New Hampshire for the Republicans in 2012 and the Democrats in 2008 bore no resemblance to one another. Knowing who won Iowa won't tell you who will win New Hampshire, but asking people in New Hampshire might.
>> No. 65805 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:52 pm
65805 spacer
>>65804
>the Democrats in 2008
Funny you should mention that. Clinton was in the lead in polling for months, but after Obama won Iowa, he was leading by double digits in some polls. The RCP average for the days before the primary showed Obama with an 8.3% lead, and the winner was... Clinton, by 2.6%. Because, again, early in the race state support in polling is softer, and the predictive value is a bit of a crapshoot. It becomes more predictive as the race goes on, and past victories in other states are a big part of that. I am not saying that knowing who won Iowa will tell you who will win New Hampshire, and honestly have no idea how you got that out of anything I've posted.
>> No. 65806 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:53 pm
65806 spacer
Also it's worth noting that the Republican who won NH in 2012 lost Iowa by 0.03%.
>> No. 65807 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 12:28 am
65807 spacer
Trump continues to speculate about what his exit would look like:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/05/donald-trump-sees-a-collapse-in-a-g-o-p-campaign-without-him/?_r=0

>“There’d be a major collapse of the race, and there’d be a major collapse of television ratings,” he said from his office in Trump Tower. “It would become a depression in television.”

>“I wouldn’t even be watching it probably, and neither would anybody else,” he said.

Hmmmm, I'm almost starting to think that maybe this reality TV star isn't a serious political candidate...
>> No. 65808 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 12:42 am
65808 spacer
The best precedent for Trump isn't Obama or Perot, or whoever else people are comparing him to. He's basically Morry "The Griz" Taylor with better name recognition.

Taylor's run was pretty special:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/78937/the-griz-michael-lewis-morry-taylor

>"Why do they call you the Griz?" I ask, after he hangs up. It seems the natural next question.

>"I got that when I took the company public," he shouts. "At the closing they gave me this plaque. It says—and they did it in Latin, which language I can't speak—but this is what it says: IN NORTH AMERICA THERE IS NO KNOWN PREDATOR TO THE GRIZZLY. So I became the Griz. Then I thought about it. Up until that time I kind of liked my other nickname, Attila. 'Cause of Attila the Hun, you know. People think Attila the Hun was a barbarian but he's not. He's the guy who ran the Roman Legion out of town."

>Morry then shouts back at Lenny, an extremely resourceful young man whose job is to race around sorting out the chaos that Morry creates wherever he goes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

>"Hey piss-boy. Are we in the Connecticut primary?"

>There's some shuffling in the back of the land yacht. "I'm not sure," says Lenny.

>...

>"Did you play sports in high school?" I ask Morry, or rather, the back of Morry's head. He doesn't even look around. He's shaking his head; I have no trouble imagining the scorn on his face. My question is plainly ridiculous. "Did I play sports?" he asks. "I am the biggest jock who ever ran for president. I can beat you in anything." And with that he blows through the double doors leading into the auditorium. High school probably was not prepared for Morry Taylor the first time he passed through, and it most certainly is no match for him now that he's sitting on $40 million-plus of Titan stock and a fully fueled presidential campaign. About thirty kids file in, slump down into their seats and settle in for a snooze they'll never have.

>"Your school is too big," booms Morry, and as the kids jolt and stir he enters his stream of consciousness. "This is what is wrong with America," he says, pointing at the kids. "Big, big, big. You don't see no little kids in here. No little kids with the big kids so that the little kids don't have anyone to look up to. When I was in school the third-graders looked up to the eighth-graders, and the eighth-grade boys were in love with the senior girls. The senior girls just thought they were cute little twerps, but it was good for them. Some kid comes to school with orange hair, you don't have to call the parents. Hell, we'll take care of the orange hair. A place like this breeds weirdos."

>The students are now fully alert.

>"I never could enjoy going to a school like this," concludes Morry. The kids seem to concur.

>"How many of you ever take accounting?" he asks. The kids are now squirming and ducking: he's breaking down their resistance, making them nervous. Two hands go up. Morry shakes his head, a little sadly. His tone changes. "I know you got a lot of these teachers"—he waves nonchalantly at a couple of uneasy-looking older men in the rafters—"and they tell you a lot of ..." (he doesn't use the word "crap" but he might as well) "things ... but in your whole entire life you are only going to use one or maybe two of those things. Hell, I took 257 engineering courses, and I never used one of them."

>He pauses and seems to reconsider. I wonder if he's about to make a little plea for the joy of learning for its own sake, the importance of a liberal education, that sort of thing. He isn't. "Now we all agree that the most important thing in your life is your family," he says. "Your momma and your daddy, your brothers and your sisters. But right after that there's something else. We all know what it is, and it's... GREEN."

>With that he reaches into his pocket and produces a fat roll of $100 bills. He holds it high so that everyone can see. Five grand. Cash. The kids are now perched on the edge of their seats, giggling nervously, probably wondering what they feed presidential candidates.

>"It all comes down to accounting," says Morry. "Accounting and money. You can't live without it. And the minute you make it someone is trying to take it away from you. So for god's sake, find out about money!"

>"Can I have some?" asks a kid in the front row.

>"It's mine!" shouts Morry, and puts the money back in his pocket, a nice illustration of some general business principle. The teachers are now frowning, but the kids are unable to preserve their original detachment.
>> No. 65809 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 12:51 am
65809 spacer
>>65807
He was never a serious political candidate, just like Jesse Ventura.
>> No. 65913 Anonymous
13th October 2015
Tuesday 9:57 pm
65913 spacer
>>64250
America isn't that stupid. They're not.
>> No. 65928 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 9:00 am
65928 spacer
>>65913
No. They are just as stupid as the lot who voted for Boris.
>> No. 65929 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 9:18 am
65929 spacer
>>65913
No, they're not. Donald Trump is not going to be the nominee.

Donald Trump is not going to be President.
>> No. 65931 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 7:49 pm
65931 spacer
>>65913
>>65929

You don't understand just how much the average American loathes the establishment candidates, you're all too distracted with irrelevant issues and media nonsense, people are fed up with cardboard cutout politicians.

This shouldn't be a hard thing to understand, really, it's the same reason Corbyn got nominated.
>> No. 65932 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 8:11 pm
65932 spacer
>>65931
And the same thing that got Savile elected.
>> No. 65933 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 8:14 pm
65933 spacer
>>65931
>This shouldn't be a hard thing to understand, really, it's the same reason Corbyn got nominated.
If the Republican nominee were chosen via a nationwide ballot, yes Trump would have a good chance.

It won't be and he doesn't.
>> No. 65935 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 8:56 pm
65935 spacer
>>65929

Alright, Dan.
>> No. 65936 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 9:24 pm
65936 spacer
>>65935
ha, >>65929 does read like dear Mr Hodges, it's true.

I decided to read Nate Silver and he says it's all going to be fine and that nice man Mr Rubio will win the nomination, but he's actually more right wing then Mr Bush III. So that's all good then.
>> No. 65937 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 9:27 pm
65937 spacer
>>65931
You'd have a point were it not for the comparatively very weird way the primaries work. It isn't an open £3 ballot that people can fix in quite the same way.
>> No. 65938 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 10:11 pm
65938 spacer
>>65937
>It isn't an open £3 ballot that people can fix in quite the same way.
No, it isn't. Instead, in most states it's an open £0 ballot that people can fix in quite the same way.
>> No. 65939 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 10:33 pm
65939 spacer
>>65938
£0 and a hell of a lot more effort than mailing in a ballot at any time that suits you over the course of month.

US primaries and caucuses are far, far more involved than the Labour leadership election process, and have been designed from the start to give party actors substantial weight in the process. Read The Party Decides if you're actually interested.
>> No. 65940 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 10:38 pm
65940 spacer
>>65939
>£0 and a hell of a lot more effort than mailing in a ballot at any time that suits you over the course of month.
Writing the word REPUBLICAN on the voter registration form where it says "Party affiliation" isn't exactly "a lot more effort".
>> No. 65941 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 10:56 pm
65941 spacer
>>65940
Voting in a Republican primary or caucus does not merely entail writing Republican on a voter registration form, though it is an important first step.
>> No. 65944 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 11:23 pm
65944 spacer
>>65941
>Voting in a Republican primary or caucus does not merely entail writing Republican on a voter registration form
Erm, yes it does. Literally nowhere in the states or territories do the Republicans limit participation to paid-up, card-carrying members of the party. In states with a closed primary, all that's required is that you are a "registered Republican", and the event itself is run by the state using the state's election apparatus, so you just turn up at your usual polling place and cast your ballot.

Caucuses are a different ball game altogether. In those cases, you simply have to turn up, partake of the drinks and cake if they've been laid on (none of this silly "treating" nonsense in the US), listen to people talk for a bit, then raise your hand or fill in a bit of paper. Of course, the decision you and your fellow caucusgoers reach on the day may not be respected in its full proportion if your state uses a tiered caucus, in which case the county convention (which still might not be limited to paid-up card-carrying members) will discuss the returns and come to its own decision, which it relays to the state convention (which again might not be limited to paid-up card-carrying members), who select and apportion the delegates in accordance with their rules. Caucuses in particular are sensitive to who is in the room on the night. Not who shows up, but specifically who is in the room - in 2012 it was unheard of for some people to be turned away from their local caucus because there simply wasn't any more room at the venue for them. Some figures suggest as many as 20% of registered voters will attend their party's caucus. To get an idea of what this means, imagine 3000 people turning up to a CLP or CCA meeting to pick their candidate for Parliament. Or 20 people turning up to a Lib Dem selection meeting. See? It's funny because their support has collapsed.
>> No. 65948 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:02 am
65948 spacer
>>65944
I think you've pretty grossly misunderstood me.

I'm not saying that you need to do anything more than register as a Republican to be eligible to participate, I am saying that that is merely the first step in a process which is far more involved than Labour's online/postal ballot.
>> No. 65949 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:04 am
65949 spacer
>>65944
This sounds harder and tedious to be honest.
>> No. 65950 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:08 am
65950 spacer
>>65949
Yeah, he actually seems to have unintentionally underlined my point pretty well.

In the ballot for Labour leadership, you paid £3 if you weren't already a member or an affiliate, and then voted online or sent in a postal ballot at any point over the course of a month. Saying that the fact that this system produced a populist victor like Corbyn is evidence that Trump could succeed in the states is incredibly dumb and ignores the vast differences in the processes, such as those pointed out in >>65944.
>> No. 65951 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:12 am
65951 spacer
>>65950
>In the ballot for Labour leadership, you paid £3 if you weren't already a member or an affiliate, and then voted online or sent in a postal ballot at any point over the course of a month.
As opposed to states using a closed primary, where you pay £0, tick a box on your registration form, and send in a postal ballot at any point over the course of a month.
>> No. 65952 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:19 am
65952 spacer
>>65951
What you outlined in >>65944 sounds ten times harder and more tedious, than sticking in my membership details online, paying three quid and voting for Corbyn.
>> No. 65954 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:21 am
65954 spacer
>>65952
Really? Filling in the voter registration form that comes around every other year is tedious? Are you some kind of attention-deficit child or something?
>> No. 65955 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:27 am
65955 spacer
>>65954
What about the bit where you have to turn up to a party and you get force fed cake or something? The cactus thing.
>> No. 65957 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:40 am
65957 spacer
>>65951
And how many states is that? In the states that allow it, what proportion of the vote is cast via a postal ballot?
>> No. 65960 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:42 am
65960 spacer
And you're ignoring the effects of staggering of state votes, winner-take-all vs proportional delegate selections, the impact of media coverage and advertising in establishing momentum etc etc.

But yeah, if you ignore all of the salient details, I guess Trump and Corbyn have similar chances!
>> No. 65962 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:07 am
65962 spacer
>>65957
Most of them. There are 56 state and territory contests. Around a third use caucuses, but they're almost entirely a small-state thing. Around a third use closed or closed-ish primaries, which means telling the state when you register to vote. Then around a third use open primaries, where you don't even have to do that. If the state lets you vote by post, then you can do so in the primary as well as the final thing. The only trouble is that if you have to vote in person, voting hours aren't quite as long as they are here - it's more usual for polls to close somewhere between 6-8pm.
>> No. 65963 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:15 am
65963 spacer
>>65962
Nah, I want a number of states where postal voting is openly and widely available, and the proportion of ballots cast by post in those states.
>> No. 65964 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:20 am
65964 spacer
To be clear, even when voting by postal ballot is possible, it is not anything like the Labour party sending out ballots to all members.

See http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/vote-by-mail/pdf/fill-in-vote-by-mail-app-instruct.pdf
>> No. 65965 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:20 am
65965 spacer

Cambridge-publishing-management-moon-on-a-stick0ea.png
659656596565965
>>65963
>Nah, I want a number of states where postal voting is openly and widely available, and the proportion of ballots cast by post Then go find them.
>> No. 65966 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:22 am
65966 spacer
There is no comparison between the US primary process and the Labour leadership contest. None at all.
>> No. 65967 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:23 am
65967 spacer
>>65965
See mate, when you make a ridiculous claim about voting in the US primary process being similarly easy to voting in the Labour leadership election, people are going to want you to back that up. If that's beyond you, then don't volunteer such idiocy in the first place.
>> No. 65968 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:26 am
65968 spacer
>>65964
>it is not anything like the Labour party sending out ballots to all members
You know, it would help you massively if you actually read the document you linked to.
>> No. 65969 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:28 am
65969 spacer
>>65968
Maybe you should read it, dickhead.

>Only the registered voter himself or herself may apply for a vote-by-mail ballot.

They don't send them out, you have to specifically request one. Most people do not.
>> No. 65970 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:29 am
65970 spacer
>>65967
>when you make a ridiculous claim about voting in the US primary process being similarly easy to voting in the Labour leadership election
Yeah, completely ridiculous. For a US election, you register for a postal vote, then they send you a ballot paper, then you fill it in and send it back, whereas for the Labour Party leadership election, you registered for a vote, then they sent you a ballot paper, then you filled it in and sent it back. See? Completely different.
>> No. 65971 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:31 am
65971 spacer

Capture.png
659716597165971
>>65969
>> No. 65972 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:39 am
65972 spacer
>>65970
In the Labour leadership election, ballots were sent out to all members. Votes were cast by filling out and returning that ballot or filling in one online.

In the US primary process, the only people voting by post are people who

a) live in a state that allows absentee ballots,

b) if they aren't an active military member, live in a state that allows no-excuse absentee ballots

c) live in a state that doesn't hold a caucus

d) actually want to.

And again, that's without even getting into the effects of staggering, winner-takes-all etc etc.

>>65971
Yes, and most people in California have never requested a single vote-by-mail ballot.
>> No. 65973 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:45 am
65973 spacer
>>65971
Also note that almost no states offer permanent absentee status, California is an exception.
>> No. 65974 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:47 am
65974 spacer
>>65972
>In the Labour leadership election, ballots were sent out to all members.
Yes, a ballot for which they had to carry out some process analogous to registering for a postal vote, such as joining the party or registering as a supporter. Are you being deliberately obtuse or were you just dropped in the delivery room?
>> No. 65975 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:02 am
65975 spacer
>>65974
Mate, you're awfully rude.
>> No. 65976 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:05 am
65976 spacer
>>65974
Merely by being a member/registering as a supporter of the Labour party, you could vote by postal/online ballot. Everyone did.

In the US primary process, you register as a member of the party and if you live in a state that allows absentee ballots, and if absentee ballots are not restricted only to those with an excuse the state deems valid, and if your state does not hold a caucus instead, and if you send in an application for a postal vote, then you can vote by post. The vast majority of people do not.

If you think that understanding the difference between those two systems is being "obtuse", that's your problem.
>> No. 65977 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:09 am
65977 spacer
>>65974
In order to vote at all you had to register with Labour.

Registering for a postal vote is optional, it's not at all analogous.
>> No. 65978 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:16 am
65978 spacer
>>65976
>Merely by being a member/registering as a supporter of the Labour party, you could vote by postal/online ballot. Everyone did.
Yes, just like merely being registered for a postal vote in the US you could vote by postal ballot. Everyone registered for a postal ballot got one. You didn't just wake up one morning and receive a ballot for the Labour leadership. You did have to tell them, in one way or another, that you might want one.

>you register as a member of the party
No. If you're in one of the states that requires it, you declare an affiliation with the party. No membership required. Around 55-60% of all registered voters in the US do this.

>if you live in a state that allows absentee ballots
Which is most of them, and most of the exceptions are places the Republicans aren't winning, and hence get fewer delegates anyway.

>if absentee ballots are not restricted only to those with an excuse the state deems valid
Which is most of those that allow them, and in many of the remainder the excuses are quite wide. In some they require that you not only be unavailable on the day, but also during the two-week "early voting" period, but then that does mean you get a whole two weeks in which to find your way to the polling station.

>if your state does not hold a caucus instead
Again, that's most of the states in contention.

>if you send in an application for a postal vote
Not really relevant. You'll need to register to vote before you can vote anyway, and increasingly the application for a postal vote is just a box on the registration form.

I really don't see what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that somehow registering with a party to be eligible to vote is different from registering with the state to be eligible to vote? Because that way lies madness.
>> No. 65979 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:20 am
65979 spacer
>>65977
>In order to vote at all you had to register with Labour.
Just like in order to vote by post at all you have to register for a postal vote. Look mate, there's no getting around this. Either the registration process is done and dusted, in which case both lots of voters automatically got a vote, or the registration process is a required hurdle, in which case both lots of voters had to pass it before they got a vote. There's really no logically consistent argument that makes one automatic and the other not.
>> No. 65980 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:27 am
65980 spacer
>>65978
Only 18 states and DC have no-excuse absentee ballots in a primary.
>> No. 65981 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:30 am
65981 spacer
>>65980
At the risk of repeating myself, where exactly are you going with this? Is this the "but going to the polling station is tedious" bollocks still?
>> No. 65982 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:30 am
65982 spacer
>>65978
>I really don't see what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that somehow registering with a party to be eligible to vote is different from registering with the state to be eligible to vote?
I'm suggesting that having a nationwide, month long vote by post where all your members are provided with a postal ballot and able to return it any any point during that month will produce a different type of candidate than a process which by and large require a significantly greater deal of effort to participate in, not lest because of the fact that postal ballots are not common.
>> No. 65983 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:32 am
65983 spacer
>>65981
Going to a polling station on a specific day, at a specific time requires more dedication than filling in and returning a ballot at any time during a month, yes. Sorry if that makes you so confused, but that's how it is lad.
>> No. 65984 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:38 am
65984 spacer
>>65982
>I'm suggesting that having a nationwide, month long vote by post where all your members are provided with a postal ballot
Which they only got by going to the effort of registering for that vote in the first place.

>not lest because of the fact that postal ballots are not common.
Define "not common". I haven't seen figures for 2012, but in November 2008 almost a third of ballots were cast before the day itself, whether by post or by in-person early voting.
>> No. 65985 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:40 am
65985 spacer
>>65984
There wasn't a presidential primary in November 2008.
>> No. 65986 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:44 am
65986 spacer
>>65985
See >>65981.
>> No. 65987 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:56 am
65987 spacer
>>65986
The figures for postal voting in a presidential election are not the same as those for voting in a primary.

In any case, I wouldn't say that less than a third of voters using absentee ballots makes it "common", no.
>> No. 65988 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 3:22 am
65988 spacer
>>65987
I think we might need to put out a missing persons notice on your point.
>> No. 65989 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 4:32 am
65989 spacer
>>65988
My point, pal, is that a system where everyone who has elected to participate votes by post is not the same as a system where some people, in some states, vote by post if they elect to do so, but the overwhelming majority, by choice or by necessity, are dedicated enough to be at a specific place at a specific time to vote.

And even if all the states used postal ballots, the staggering, the rules of delegate apportionment, the impact of advertising and media, the narrative of momentum etc. etc. would mean that the outcome would still be different.

That's the last I'll say on this, it's getting extremely tedious.
>> No. 65992 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 8:31 am
65992 spacer
>>65989
Then it would appear that your point is simply wrong.
>> No. 65994 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 8:46 am
65994 spacer
>>65992
If you're actually interested in the process, how it came about, how it works, etc. read The Party Decides.

Or alternatively just keep posting nonsense in the hope that someone, somewhere will think you know what you're talking about because you've described a caucus.
>> No. 65996 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 9:17 am
65996 spacer
>>65994
Says the lad posting nonsense who thinks he knows what he's talking about because he once read a book.

There is literally nothing in the process itself that allows us to rule anyone out at this stage. There are many reasons why he's unlikely to win, but the process is not yet one of them.
>> No. 66000 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 9:54 am
66000 spacer
>>65996
The process of American primaries makes it far more difficult for a populist candidate to win than it is for a populist candidate to win the Labour leadership election. It was explicitly set up to be that way.

If you are seriously have this much difficulty understanding why, you probably should forget about reading that book, because you're possibly fucking illiterate.
>> No. 66001 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 10:25 am
66001 spacer
>>66000

The primaries don't do shit to combat populism; presidential candidates are all spin, no substance. They're always populist; they might just be able to act as though they're not.
>> No. 66002 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 11:35 am
66002 spacer
>>66001
I think we may have different ideas of what populism means.

I mean that a candidate like Trump, or Sanders, or Ron Paul, who holds (or at least expresses) positions who resonate strongly with party's base, or a segment of that base, but go against party orthodoxy, will have a hard time getting through the primary process.
>> No. 66003 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:11 pm
66003 spacer
>>66000
Yeah, you see, what you've done there is resort to the tactic of just repeating yourself until you're right. Empirical evidence suggests that populist candidates tend to have an easier time of it than principled ones. It also suggests people in open primaries can cross the floor and influence the outcome. But no, that evidence is invalid because you once read a book. Obviously if the map and the territory disagree, you're trusting the map.
>> No. 66004 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:23 pm
66004 spacer
>>66002
I'm not sure that's what populism means. I've understood it as telling the people what they want to hear. "Hopes and fears" politics. As Tony Benn would put it, populists are weather vanes rather than signposts. Such as Romney effectively saying different things to different audiences in different parts of the country. By contrast, Ron Paul's message has been more or less the same for the last four decades. His 2012 platform might as well have been his platform when he made a run as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. He is the archetypal signpost.
>> No. 66026 Anonymous
16th October 2015
Friday 12:32 am
66026 spacer
>>66003
>Empirical evidence suggests that populist candidates tend to have an easier time of it than principled ones

>>66004
>Tony Benn would put it, populists are weather vanes rather than signposts. Such as Romney effectively saying different things to different audiences in different parts of the country.

I've never encountered a definition of populism remotely like this. Populism is a movement that seeks to represent the interests of the public vs the elite. Be it Trump vs the career politicians, Sanders vs the 1%, or Ron Paul vs the Fed. It's not a question "populist vs principled".

Populist candidates certainly haven't done well in the nomination process historically, and Mitt Romney is just about as far from one as it's possible to be. The populist wing of the party, the Tea party, loathed him.
>> No. 66028 Anonymous
16th October 2015
Friday 12:50 am
66028 spacer
>>66026
>I've never encountered a definition of populism remotely like this.
Likewise. I've only ever heard it used to refer to the politics of pandering, and offering people just what they want, even if that means making contradictory pledges to different constituencies. Candidates like that are known to do well, and up to a point the more naked the pandering the better they tend to do.
>> No. 66029 Anonymous
16th October 2015
Friday 1:20 am
66029 spacer
>>66028
Okay, well I'm not referring to that when I say populist, I'm referring to the traditional definition.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=populism

>S: (n) populism (the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite)
>> No. 66030 Anonymous
16th October 2015
Friday 1:22 am
66030 spacer
Here's a good article on the populism of Trump and Sanders.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/07/the-populists
>> No. 66124 Anonymous
23rd October 2015
Friday 11:21 pm
66124 spacer
This seems like as good a place as any to leave these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ZLAT7BY_s
>> No. 66125 Anonymous
24th October 2015
Saturday 7:55 am
66125 spacer
>>66030
>Trump and Sanders.

That would be an excellent sitcom.
>> No. 66126 Anonymous
24th October 2015
Saturday 1:00 pm
66126 spacer

ap_bernie-sanders_ap-photo5.jpg
661266612666126
>>66125

>Trump makes out with Sanders girlfriend Dalia on the sofa. Trump’s on top.

Trump: Oh baby, you make me so hot.

>Trump's toupee flips up suggestively.

>(Audience roars with laughter.)

>Dalia attempts to push Trump back.

Dalia (in shrill New Yorkese): Donny, stop, I-

Trump (annoyed): The Trump! It’s pronounced THE Trump, you kikey whore!

>(Audience displays considerable mirth.)

Dalia: T-The Trump, sorry. The Trump… I-I don’t feel comfortable with this.

Trump: What’s wrong? Is Ivanka’s dress too tight? She has a very lean, supple body y’know.

Dalia: No no, it’s not that. It’s… Bernie, we’re hurting Bernie.

Trump: Baby, what people don’t know can’t hurt ‘em. After-all, the illusion always TRUMPS reality. (Trump turns to look directly into camera) How’d you think I got those poll ratings?

>(Nervous laughter wafts from the stalls until someone repeats “trumps!” and they all fall into hysterical mirth.)

>At this point a key can be heard turning in the lock.
>The front door bursts open, Sanders enters the room on his tiny, rickety donkey. The donkey’s named Socialized Health Care.

Sanders (waving arms erratically): Heya comrades!

>(A wave of applause shake the set’s very foundations.)

>Trump and Dalia fix themselves and sit up on sofa.

Sanders: And what have my best bud and favourite lady been up to today? I was out at the Mall having a Hersey bar… and eating it!

>(Chortling.)

Dalia: Look, Bernie, there’s some ‘ing I been meaning to tell ya.

Trump (jabbing her in the ribs with a pen): Are you sure about that?

Dalia: This won’t be easy, Bernie, you betta get off Socialized Health Care and take a seat.

Trump (teeth gritted): Why don’t you go out into the kitchen and make up some dreidel pie, huh hun?

>Dalia stands.

Dalia: Bernie, I and The Trump have been having sex behind your back.

Trump (grinning, he leans around Dalia to look at the camera): And also behind hers!

>He slaps Dalia’s behind.

Trump: Anything so I didn’t have to look at that nose!

>(A man in the front row is taken aside by the medical team and diagnosed with having split sides. It proves fatal.)

Dalia: Oh! I can’t deal with this now! I’m sorry Bernie.

>Dalia runs out of the room leaving Trump and Bernie in silence. Bernie looks confused and distraught.

Sanders: Oy! Oy! …This can’t be happening.

Trump: Hey, now, there’s no need for language like that. Bernie, take a seat.

Sanders (in shock): …She’s my favourite lady and you’re my best bud…

Trump: Look here. Do you want know the truth of the matter? Bernie, you’re always on about sharing and being nice to each other and, well, I was trying to follow your example. I was trying to do that by fucking Dalia. Y’see, I respect you Bernie. I respect you a lot. I was just trying to be a bit more like my best bud.

>(A loud “awwww” comes from the audience. Theatre assistants begin handing out boxes of tissues.)

Sanders: That’s the nicest thing anyone has said about me. Do you really mean it?

>Trump, who has his arm around the hunched Senator, smiles warmly.

Trump: Of course not you loser! Now come on, we’re going to the titty bar.

>The theme tune to Curb Your Enthusiasm begins playing as Sanders looks up and smiles back at his lascivious old friend.

>(End Credits.)

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 66127 Anonymous
24th October 2015
Saturday 1:33 pm
66127 spacer
>>66126

Better than The Big Bang Theory.
>> No. 66237 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 3:27 pm
66237 spacer
>>66126
It's not a toupée.
>> No. 66255 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 7:23 pm
66255 spacer
>>66237
Quite. The Donald wears The Toupée.
>> No. 66258 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 8:05 pm
66258 spacer

Donald_Trump_Hairstyle_Instructions[1].jpg
662586625866258
>>66255
It's his real hair. It's a ridiculous (and patently failed) combed forward attempt to disguise his hair loss, but it's real.
>> No. 66261 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 8:36 pm
66261 spacer
>>66258
Well I'll be. Even his comb-over has a comb-over.
>> No. 66263 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 8:49 pm
66263 spacer
>>66261

I know right. It looks like weather patterns.
>> No. 66367 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 12:18 pm
66367 spacer
Trump's old news. The new hotness is this guy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JblVU8GyK0
>> No. 66368 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 1:03 pm
66368 spacer
Carson has pulled ahead of Trump for the first time, but only really trading within the crazy vote, which is holding steady at around 48%. Out of the serious candidates, it's looking like Marco Rubio will pick up a bit of momentum.

Just a couple of months to go now. Iowa goes on Feb 1, and the whole thing will be about halfway there by the middle of March, so there's not much incentive for candidates still in after Iowa to drop out before then, whereas last time it took more than a month longer to reach that stage.
>> No. 66490 Anonymous
2nd November 2015
Monday 9:24 am
66490 spacer
Boy, he sure likes China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs
>> No. 66491 Anonymous
2nd November 2015
Monday 10:19 am
66491 spacer
>>66490

Aye, he's fucking mad about plates.
>> No. 66492 Anonymous
2nd November 2015
Monday 12:22 pm
66492 spacer
>>66490

He's actually saying vagina, but the guy who made the video cut off the "va".
>> No. 66556 Anonymous
5th November 2015
Thursday 4:59 pm
66556 spacer

ha'tak.png
665566655666556
>>66368
It seems the Republican race is decided by who can make the most outlandish brash statements. Carson was a nobody until he started making disparaging comments about minorities and backing Biblical science. Today he made the claim that the Pyramids were used to store grain and not docking platforms for alien ships like those scientists say.
>> No. 66557 Anonymous
5th November 2015
Thursday 5:32 pm
66557 spacer
>>66556
He's actually been all over Fox News for years, and has had really good favourables throughout the race.
>> No. 66569 Anonymous
9th November 2015
Monday 4:34 am
66569 spacer
>>66557
Is anyone following the entire Deportdolphin rape thing? Apparently Hillary tried to frame Bernie Sanders for a dig at Trump. They've also been digging into her campaign donations and finding some inconsistencies.
>> No. 66591 Anonymous
10th November 2015
Tuesday 12:54 am
66591 spacer

jeb.png
665916659166591
I can't believe there's still a whole year of this to go.
>> No. 66592 Anonymous
10th November 2015
Tuesday 1:14 am
66592 spacer
>>66591
It is weird that I don't know what is real and what isn't any more.
>> No. 66594 Anonymous
10th November 2015
Tuesday 1:18 am
66594 spacer
>>66592
Oh, it's real.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/09/politics/jeb-bush-kill-baby-hitler/index.html
>> No. 66769 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 2:46 am
66769 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq4l2eYIsU0

Those two girls who fucked up Bernie's rally really, really shot themselves in the foot.
>> No. 66770 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 7:03 am
66770 spacer

1530833601135304231.png
667706677066770
>>66769
You can't stump the Trump.
>> No. 66775 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 9:49 am
66775 spacer
>>66770
No doubt this will attract some negative responses, and it probably deserves it but I am a little torn on campaigning for some of these high profile cases.

On the one hand I don't believe these gents who've robbed a shop, who've acted aggressively or even those who have been caught beating their girlfriends and then the subsequent medical team sent to help, should die. I'm against the death penalty and I'm against the killing of people.

On the other hand I have to question what kind of message it sends out when people campaign on behalf of men who were literally acting like scourges of society, creating them this martyr status. Devalues the movement for me and I find it hard to have sympathy when they support literally any kind of shady character as long as the police are the bad guys.
>> No. 66779 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 11:35 am
66779 spacer
>>66775
I think it goes back to the saying that we should judge a society by how it treats its least. We should expect our police to be responsible enforcers of the law, no matter who they're enforcing it against. That's their role, and I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them up to that standard. If you neglect to campaign for less sympathetic victims, you tacitly endorse the idea that police should be judge, jury, and executioner, doling out force based on on a judgement of whether the perpetrator "deserves it", instead of what the situation itself merits.

Not to mention that just as history is written by the victors, police reports are written by, well, police, whose depiction of "scourges of society" should not be taken at face value.
>> No. 66783 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 1:21 pm
66783 spacer
>>66779


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y
>> No. 66797 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:28 pm
66797 spacer
>>66770

The source doesn't exist, and the image has been traced back to a neo-Nazi group. Oops!

The USA is genuinely fucked if Trump wins, right? He's a fascist hell beast.
>> No. 66798 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:33 pm
66798 spacer
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/24/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-even-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it

>Trump told supporters: “Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that. It works.”

Genuinely worrying.
>> No. 66799 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:46 pm
66799 spacer
>>66798
But Bush authorised waterboarding and later went on to extol its utility in his memoir, so it's hardly the aberration the Guardian's pretending it is.
>> No. 66800 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:51 pm
66800 spacer
>>66799
Well if Bush said it, it must be true.
>> No. 66801 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:58 pm
66801 spacer
>>66800
He's talking about the precedent.
The president's precedent.
>> No. 66802 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 6:10 pm
66802 spacer
>>66799
I think it's that he went on to say: “… and if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us”.

That and the "I would approve more than that." bit.
>> No. 66803 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 6:23 pm
66803 spacer
>>66798

It doesn't even work! People will tell you any old shite when you torture them! Christ on a fucking bike. They spent more than a decade torturing people and it still didn't help them find Bin Laden! How stupid are these people?

But, they aren't stupid, they're just vindictive and uncaring. Who cares if you get bogus information? It's only some soldiers that might die, or maybe a few hundred thousand swarthy civilians. Oh, and don't forget a couple of trillion dollars and an unimaginably destabilised country or three.

The last 15 years of shifting politics to the right, and complete lack of push back, or moreover outright compliance, from the left has led to a racist, billionaire who talks entirely in reactionary sound bites and confused anecdotes becoming a likely contender for US president.
>> No. 66804 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 7:09 pm
66804 spacer
>>66797
How far off is it? I assume the % for whites killing whites is higher if it's including Hispanics.
>> No. 66808 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 8:04 pm
66808 spacer
>>66803
This a very common misconception that 'torture' is some kind of awful thing done to human beings. They are really just psychological, persuasive techniques done by a human with their entire sessions being watched and controlled by groups of doctors. And then only torturing a small amount of threats that have all went through a long targeting process.

At the end of the day they are just like traditional pub brawls but with the brownlad sitting on a chair in a base hundreds or thousand of miles away instead of being in pub brawl in an EDL pub.

I don't think a lot of people realise just how high the level of scrutiny every torture session is under. Various "anti-torture" groups like to push this image that it's some kind of out of control war crime just going around torturing everyone after illegal renditions willy nilly. The reality is gangs of lawyers and political advisors watching every little detail and the final authorisation to torture being a decision that takes a lot of time and consideration. The process is so slow that the window to torture most targets closes long before interrogator finishes his pint and goes off to the base.
>> No. 66809 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 8:30 pm
66809 spacer
>>66808

I don't care how well the state's legally covered.

I also don't care for how low you wish to set the bar for Western civilisation. If you want to beat and humiliate your enemies then perhaps you'd feel more at home in Egypt or Assad's Syria?

And well done for completely overlooking the undeniable fact that torture does not foster solid intelligence. So long as you can get a nice little twitch in your tingly bits from the thought of an (alleged) terrorist bastard getting his just desserts, who cares if you're actively endangering the lives of domestic soldiers and citizens?
>> No. 66814 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 9:21 pm
66814 spacer
>>66809
>I don't care how well the state's legally covered.
Either there's laws against something or there's not.

Well, not quite that black and white in nations with common law, but still.
>> No. 66816 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 9:30 pm
66816 spacer
>>66808

The use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the CIA was not subject to any degree of legal scrutiny. It was being conducted in secret, in locations whose very existence was denied. These detainees did not have access to legal counsel or the ability to contact the outside world. The CIA repeatedly lied to the US government and the media about their interrogation programme.

The following are verbatim quotes from the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report on CIA interrogation:

"The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others."

"The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program."

"The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program."

"The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate."

"The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture
>> No. 66819 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 10:32 pm
66819 spacer
>>66816
It isn't illegal because they happened in black sites in Egypt, and as we all know, in Egypt (and other shitholes like Djibouti) torture is not illegal.
>> No. 66828 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 12:48 am
66828 spacer
While I'm not surprised that he's racking up ratings at the red end of the scale, it amazes me just how wrong he is at times.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/
>> No. 66833 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 11:47 am
66833 spacer
>>66814
Nearly every member of the UN is a signatory to the Convention on Torture.
>> No. 66834 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 12:10 pm
66834 spacer

unrc.png
668346683466834
>>66833
The maps that show which countries have ratified, signed etc. UN conventions are actually really interesting.

This one's my favourite.
>> No. 66835 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 1:20 pm
66835 spacer
>>66828
The joke of it is he's not even the worst. Until the 8th of this month, when he finally got a "mostly true" ranking, not one statement of Ben Carson's was ranked anything above half true.
>> No. 66836 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 1:49 pm
66836 spacer
Trump's posturing on refugees, fucking refugees, is hilarious. He is treating them like filthy illegal immigrants, asking for Moslem registration and not understanding the irony that the only time a mass immigration of refugees has ever wiped out the native culture will be celebrated by him and his family this week.
>> No. 66837 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 2:56 pm
66837 spacer
>>66834

>The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it because it forbids both the death penalty and life imprisonment for children"

How charming
>> No. 66839 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 3:16 pm
66839 spacer
>>66837
Also, quite a number of US conservatives oppose it on the grounds that it affords children freedom of religion, which they don't agree with in case it means they can't force their kids to go to church.

That freedom was pushed for by the Reagan administration, who wanted the convention to contain language reflecting values enumerated in the US Bill of Rights. D'oh!
>> No. 66840 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 3:43 pm
66840 spacer
>>66839

Who'd have ever imagined that in retrospect, Reagan seems like a good egg.
>> No. 66841 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 3:52 pm
66841 spacer
>>66840

Reagan has more in common with the likes of Sanders than he does with the likes of Trump/Carson.

He was the last great Republican President. The entire party has spiralled downwards into the echo chamber for racists and bigots it is today.
>> No. 66842 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 4:13 pm
66842 spacer

Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Ronald_Reagan.png
668426684266842
>>66841

On the one hand he started the war on drugs, on the other hand he ended the cold war.

Also, any modern politician would kill for approval numbers like this.
>> No. 66844 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 4:21 pm
66844 spacer
>>66836
They are.
>> No. 66845 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 4:44 pm
66845 spacer
>>66841
Funnily enough, Ronald Reagan Jr. is a vocal Sanders supporter. And former ballet dancer.

His adopted brother, Michael, is a hard right talk radio host.

Ron Sr failed to recognise Michael at his graduation, prompting him to ask “My name is Ronald Reagan. What’s yours?”, to be met with the response "I'm your son, Mike". I'm not going to say Michael Reagan's entire career is an ongoing quest for the Gipper's approval because of his obvious inferiority complex as a result of his childhood, but... Well, actually I think I am saying that.
>> No. 66846 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 4:47 pm
66846 spacer
>>66842
I can think of one politician for whom those numbers would be a serious downgrade.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/261180-sanders-has-highest-approval-rating-in-the-senate
>> No. 66849 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 6:53 pm
66849 spacer
>>66846

His national favourability is only about 40%, which is lower than that of Obama and Biden. I have a lot of respect for Biden, but I don't think he has any real appeal in the red states. Of course, that's the problem in a nutshell - America is now two increasingly polarised halves.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating
>> No. 66851 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 7:00 pm
66851 spacer
>>66849
His constituency isn't national, though, is it?
>> No. 66852 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 7:38 pm
66852 spacer
>>66851

Obviously not. Comparing Sanders's congressional approval rating with Reagan's presidential approval rating is apples-to-oranges. Senators have consistently higher approval ratings than presidents or presidential candidates. Sanders is indeed the senator with the highest approval ratings, but half the senate pulls better numbers than the president. It's the nature of the job - you have to make far fewer compromises when you're only representing a state.
>> No. 66853 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 7:58 pm
66853 spacer
>>66852
So it's not true to say "any modern politician would kill for approval numbers like this", then.
>> No. 66854 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 9:20 pm
66854 spacer
>>66839
Did you know that Ronald Reagan would try and convince the Soviets that he had lost his mind and was willing to do anything in order to end the Vietnam war.

>>66839">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory>>66839
>> No. 66855 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 9:23 pm
66855 spacer
>>66854
... The Vietnam War ended long before Reagan took office, lad.
>> No. 66856 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 9:24 pm
66856 spacer

PNODhwz.jpg
668566685666856
>>66854
>Madman_theory
>> No. 66857 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 9:26 pm
66857 spacer
>>66855
I don't know why I read that as Nixon and then wrote Reagan in the post. Brainfart, sorry. I don't even know how it came out so mangled either.
>> No. 66858 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 10:01 pm
66858 spacer
>>66857
Well that's just not true then. Nixon actually purposefully prolonged the Vietnam war to help his electoral chances.
>> No. 66859 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 10:29 pm
66859 spacer
>>66855
How was Reagan supposed to know that?
>> No. 67255 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 11:00 am
67255 spacer
Donald Trump sparked a furious backlash on Monday when he called for all Muslims to be barred from entering the United States in the wake of terrorism attacks in Paris and California.

It was a bombshell even by the outspoken candidate's standard of bombast, and brought the immediate condemnation of his rivals for the Republican nomination. However, Trump was unmoved later telling a crowd: "I. Don't. Care."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12038280/Donald-Trump-calls-for-a-ban-on-all-Muslims-entering-the-US-live.html

No doubt his popularity will continue to rocket.
>> No. 67257 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 12:01 pm
67257 spacer
>>67255
Saw something on the news the other day of an American university head saying that if more people had concealed carry permits "We could end those Muslims". Legitimately frightening.
>> No. 67258 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 1:40 pm
67258 spacer
>>67257
Why? Islam is a cancer.
>> No. 67259 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 1:50 pm
67259 spacer
>>67258
Your posting is a cancer.
>> No. 67260 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 2:23 pm
67260 spacer

NTWICE3.png
672606726067260
>>67258
>> No. 67261 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 2:45 pm
67261 spacer
>>67259>>67260
Christ, lads. You don't have to bite every single fucking time.
>> No. 67262 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 2:59 pm
67262 spacer
>>67261
I wasn't trolling, what on earth is not cancerous about belief in a random cloud wizard that leads to the death and oppression of millions?

Maybe I'm the only reasonable one here.
>> No. 67263 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:06 pm
67263 spacer
>>67262

>belief in a random cloud wizard that leads to the death and oppression of millions?

Could you be any more of an archetype? Have a word, m8.

Sounds a lot like Evangelical Protestantism, frankly.
>> No. 67264 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:07 pm
67264 spacer
>>67263
What?
>> No. 67265 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:10 pm
67265 spacer
>>67264

Give us a look at your hat collection, slowlad.
>> No. 67266 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:17 pm
67266 spacer
>>67265
I'm not a militant atheist if that's what you mean. You don't have to be to acknowledge how godawful religion in general is.
>> No. 67268 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:37 pm
67268 spacer
>>67266

You don't have to not believe in religion to not believe in religion? Am I being trolled?
>> No. 67269 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:51 pm
67269 spacer
>>67257

You just can't handle the freedom™ m8. If he said the same thing over here he'd probably be arrested.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLUOprLLyY0
>> No. 67270 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 4:52 pm
67270 spacer
>>67255
>Donald Trump sparked a furious backlash on Monday
Why? He already said Muslims need a special ID just for them. Apparently it is too far now. That's where the line is drawn.
>> No. 67272 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 4:56 pm
67272 spacer
>>67270
America wouldn't give Anne Frank's family aslyum, so it's perfectly alright to make Muslims wear the equivalent of yellow badges. It was something like that, I didn't entirely follow the logic of it.
>> No. 67273 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 4:56 pm
67273 spacer
>>67270

Does one furious backlash invalidate another? He pisses people off every time he opens his mouth.
>> No. 67274 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 5:33 pm
67274 spacer
>>67273
They're usually just the same people or foreigners each time, making it irrelevant really.
>> No. 67275 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 5:55 pm
67275 spacer
>>67273
I'm loving it. He's a fucking billionaire making an ass out of politics and the world. I don't think he believes any of his own hype, this is just his equivalent of posting on /IQ/ but on a global scale. Good drills that ladmate.
>> No. 67276 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:01 pm
67276 spacer
>>67274
Nah, this time even Dick Cheney is coming out and saying this is a bit much. Dick fucking Cheney.
>> No. 67277 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:08 pm
67277 spacer
>>67276
Personally I'm just glad he's got the bollocks to say what people are thinking in many cases, regardless if lots of people get oh so offended over it, pushing anti-left liberal attitudes into the accepted mainstream. Good luck to him on his adventures, but prepare for a Clinton government.
>> No. 67278 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:15 pm
67278 spacer
>>67276

Dick Cheney and his ilk created this shit. Years of race baiting and tell people the POTUS is a Muslim, an inability to make any reasonable progress on immigration reform, and it's all led to this.
>> No. 67279 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:43 pm
67279 spacer
>>67275
>this is just his equivalent of posting on /IQ/ but on a global scale.
It's hilarious isn't it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkCtipt6kqU

I doubt he'll get elected but every time he opens his mouth, the offended response I see everywhere are just beautiful. Worth the price of admission.
>> No. 67280 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:48 pm
67280 spacer

Unstumpable_Trump[1].jpg
672806728067280
>>67279
No wonder he's a political imageboard's sweetheart. He's genuinely doing it for the lulz.
>> No. 67281 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:57 pm
67281 spacer
I imagine if this causes his poll ratings to go even higher that some of the other Republican candidates will try and out-retard each other with similar outrageous statements to try and gain popularity.
>> No. 67282 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 7:23 pm
67282 spacer
>>67279

What do you think "offense" is? I'm disgusted by this by this man, but I'm not gasping and clutching my hands to my face like a Victorian lady walking in on her first born son bumming his house-master.

>>67281

That's what's been happening for years now. Obama did nothing to push back against it during his first term, and the rot has reached unmanageable levels.
>> No. 67287 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:04 pm
67287 spacer

tbG91Y5.png
672876728767287
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003
>> No. 67288 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:18 pm
67288 spacer
>>67287
>If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the 'unacceptable behaviour' criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.

I'd like to think she is trying to point out the absurdity of such bans in general but I know better than to make assumptions about the intelligence of the British public.

Can the government not shut this site down already, its nothing but fodder for useless stories in the papers and I doubt the vast majority of those who signed actually thought this through any more than they would a facebook 'like'.
>> No. 67289 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:24 pm
67289 spacer
>>67288

I thought it was funny, which is about as far as I thought about it really if I'm honest. Seeing the Govt hand wring over it or the 1000/1 shot that they actually do it would be glorious for the shitstorm it would kick up in Seppo.
>> No. 67290 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:28 pm
67290 spacer
>>67288
>>67287

It's that damnable thing where British people care more about US politics for some reason. I don't know if it's because it's more personality led, or because British politics is characterised by arcane traditions that make you feel you need a degree to get a handle on half of what's going on, but it's frustrating regardless.

As for the petition site, it's a nice idea, it's just a shame people care more about what some wanker has burbled into a microphone this week, than things like income disparity and the transparently intentional withering of the NHS.
>> No. 67291 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:48 pm
67291 spacer
>>67290
>It's that damnable thing where British people care more about US politics for some reason.

The British public consume a huge amount of American entertainment so its only natural our society will start to ape American culture and by extension be dragged into its debates. I don't think its a problem of our institutions but instead that America dominates the entertainment (and news if that is still a separate thing) market at least for the mouth-breathing cretins which means people get more exposure to American politics than domestic stuff.

>As for the petition site, it's a nice idea, it's just a shame people care more about what some wanker has burbled into a microphone this week, than things like income disparity and the transparently intentional withering of the NHS.

I dunno, I think those that actually do care probably spend less time pissing about on petition websites.
>> No. 67293 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 8:51 pm
67293 spacer
>>67290
Here's a British perspective, fuck the NHS, the sooner it's dissolved the better for us all.
>> No. 67294 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 8:53 pm
67294 spacer
>>67293

I look forward to your next paper.
>> No. 67295 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 9:27 pm
67295 spacer
>>67290
>It's that damnable thing where British people care more about US politics for some reason. I don't know if it's because it's more personality led, or because British politics is characterised by arcane traditions that make you feel you need a degree to get a handle on half of what's going on, but it's frustrating regardless.
Nah, engaging with the real substance of US politics requires just as much knowledge of arcane traditions. It just happens that there's a hilarious sideshow going on as well as that which can be very entertaining and requires relatively little foreknowledge to engage with, particularly in presidential races.

Also, if the Iraq war accomplished anything it was showing that US politics have a very real and significant impact on our own, so there's that.
>> No. 67296 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 9:28 pm
67296 spacer
>>67293
Careful with that edge, Eugene.
>> No. 67302 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 10:45 pm
67302 spacer
>>67295
>Also, if the Iraq war accomplished anything it was showing that US politics have a very real and significant impact on our own, so there's that.
Not it doesn't. The Iraq war just showed everyone that we like sucking Uncle Sam's cock. It was our doing. Our choice.
>> No. 67303 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 10:55 pm
67303 spacer
>>67302
Careful now, Bono.
>> No. 67304 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:02 pm
67304 spacer
>>67302

That's the same thing, you just worded it differently, silly.
>> No. 67307 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:24 pm
67307 spacer
>>67304
No. You implied that what happens over there matters too greatly to us. That isn't true. We just care too much since we could have declined entering the illegal war like the French and Germans did. Cunts like you facilitate this kind of mindset by making excuses and talking about how similar we are and what have you. Fuck off.
>> No. 67310 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:30 pm
67310 spacer
>>67307

Putting words in his mouth there, lad. If you can't hold up a conversation without attacking a person's character maybe you should fuck off.
>> No. 67313 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:33 pm
67313 spacer
>>67310
Don't you dare speak to me that way.
>> No. 67318 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:40 pm
67318 spacer
>>67313

Wont no wot hit im.
>> No. 67319 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:44 pm
67319 spacer
>>67307
>Cunts
No need to bring ISIL into this, lad.
>> No. 67322 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:49 pm
67322 spacer
>>67313

Dry your eyes, m8. Fucking diddums.
>> No. 67324 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:51 pm
67324 spacer
>>67307
The poster you're replying to didn't imply anything, that was me, and I didn't imply anything beyond US policy impacting us. I didn't say that it should, or that it has to, or that it inevitably does, I just stated a simple fact, which really shouldn't make you so angry.
>> No. 67328 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:57 pm
67328 spacer
>>67322
Watch yourself mate.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 67358 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 2:30 pm
67358 spacer
>>67313

I'd like this post to be entered for the booby prizes when we do our post of the year run down lads. It is the double standards, special pleading, holier than thou attitude, and being so offended that someone told them to fuck off, after they told someone to fuck off that makes it for me. That ladm8 is the Ed Wood of Britfa.gs posters.
>> No. 67362 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 3:30 pm
67362 spacer
>>67358

How very dare you.
>> No. 67363 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 4:27 pm
67363 spacer
>>67362

Don't you dare speak to me that way.
>> No. 67371 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 8:20 pm
67371 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRoRiOt_gE
>> No. 67376 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 8:31 pm
67376 spacer
>>67371

>So the people of England

Wrong! You are wrong, sir! The people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have signed a petition. A petition I believe would garner much wider support were to include the total sum of that transatlantic cesspit in it's remit.

I'd sign it, anyway.
>> No. 67384 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 9:03 pm
67384 spacer
>>67371
I know this is supposed to be satire but it's always amusing when Americans accuse the UK of having become a police state.
>> No. 67385 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 9:07 pm
67385 spacer

3american-police-militarization-war.si_[1].jpg
673856738567385