U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Sponsored by Betty Croker's Hamburger Helper)

[Disco]

Unless it's lime, lime can fuck off.

[GS]

I can't see a Cruz win. You'd think if it's going to be a contested convention, they'll go for Kasich on the grounds he might actually win the general. Even if Cruz did get through, Clinton would almost certainly beat him.

[bruhnaldo]

It's jam you idiot.

Imagine all of the other things you could teach me as your new roommate :)


If he makes jelly he's in, tbh.

Can't you just buy it in England?


Unless it's lime, lime can fuck off.

Who would ever do that to their taste buds? The only thing lime is good for is making lemon-lime flavored drinks and Key Lime Pie, which even then isn't really that good.

[Pepe]

What would make anyone think that Kasich has a chance? Sure, he comes off as 'decent' but that is clearly not what the Republicans are looking for. Both Cruz and Trump have a far better chance than him, which the primary results very clearly demonstrate. Isn't that the whole point of a primary anyway?

[GS]

What would make anyone think that Kasich has a chance? Sure, he comes off as 'decent' but that is clearly not what the Republicans are looking for. Both Cruz and Trump have a far better chance than him, which the primary results very clearly demonstrate. Isn't that the whole point of a primary anyway?

The primaries are appealing to the base and those who are natural Republicans. Elections are won from the centre, appealing to independents, moderates and swing voters. Trump and Cruz are unlikely to win, whereas Kasich has a record of being solid and moderate. He'll appeal to independents, many of whom won't like Clinton. He's an alternative which the electorate won't consider as being "worse than the other one". He's also from Ohio, securing a key swing state right off the bat.

There was also a poll done recently where Clinton was put against the three Republicans. She thumped Trump, beat Cruz by a good distance but lost out to Kasich. How accurate that is would be hard to say, but Kasich would at least be competitive. Trump can't win, and Cruz is too weird.

[Jimmy Floyd]

What is Cruzface all about? If you hold your hand over one side of his face he looks like he's smiling genially, but if you hold your hand over the other side he's gazing, distraught, anxious, perhaps even crying for help.

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/cfd2949a6bc4f7e98cc6a3fae3f80d64a910519e/c=0-159-4926-2942&r=x1683&c=3200x1680/local/-/media/2015/06/27/USATODAY/USATODAY/635710194244161615-XXX-CAPITAL-DOWNLOAD-SEN.-TED-CRUZ-JMG-40121-74074276.JPG

[Pepe]

Elections are won by convincing your side to bother showing up. I don't really see Trump and Cruz supporters (which are pretty much everyone) being particularly excited about Kasich. A few independents might like Kasich, but I can see more people who usually don't bother showing up voting for someone like Trump (because for some reason people are voting for Trump.) Truth be told, Clinton looks the clear favorite and that has been the case since before this whole circus even began. It just seems to me that the Republican party deciding to tell all their voters to go fuck themselves and choose bloody Kasich wouldn't be a particularly smart move. I think you only like him because he seems 'decent' next to the others so he is a right winger you can see yourself getting behind, unlike the other two nutters. Clinton would swipe the floor with him, he has absolutely nothing going on for him.

[GS]

Elections are won by convincing your side to bother showing up. I don't really see Trump and Cruz supporters (which are pretty much everyone) being particularly excited about Kasich. A few independents might like Kasich, but I can see more people who usually don't bother showing up voting for someone like Trump (because for some reason people are voting for Trump.) Truth be told, Clinton looks the clear favorite and that has been the case since before this whole circus even began. It just seems to me that the Republican party deciding to tell all their voters to go fuck themselves and choose bloody Kasich wouldn't be a particularly smart move. I think you only like him because he seems 'decent' next to the others so he is a right winger you can see yourself getting behind, unlike the other two nutters. Clinton would swipe the floor with him, he has absolutely nothing going on for him.

It's not a case of being 'excited'. Republicans hate Clinton. A solid ground operation from Republicans, particularly congressmen and senators in stronghold districts and states, will see him sweep the south and other Republican strongholds. They'll be 'energised' sufficiently to stop Clinton. It gets them a solid foundation in the electoral college, and Kasich then becomes someone that can be 'sold' to the wider electorate as a moderate, supportable candidate.

Your assertion on Trump is also erroneous. He has very low support amongst key demographics, including women, the young and ethnic minorities. It is inconceivable that he wins because of this. He might energise the base of the party and get them to show up, but they're going to win the south and other Republican states anyway. He simply cannot win in the electoral college system.

I also wouldn't vote for a Republican in a US election solely on the basis that the executive nominates Supreme Court justices and the Republicans would inevitably pick pro-life candidates. I don't like abortion, but you can't have a party using this as a litmus test and supporting judges on the basis of imposing their morals on other people. Fuck that. Their party are also full of fascists, so I wouldn't be going near them.

And again - you may think Kasich has nothing going for him, but he is a viable "not Clinton" candidate who takes a key swing state. It's a better foundation than anything Trump or Cruz can offer. Undemocratic it may, but if Trump doesn't win enough delegates then that's just tough shit for him. You should probably read this, which at least has statistics to support my points on Kasich - http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/poll-john-kasich-vs-hillary-clinton-221192.

[Pepe]

I don't do polls, so fuck that. I simply don't see anything that makes him 'viable' but it is all unimportant anyway, they are losing. Losing while also telling their voters that their opinion is worth fuck all does not seem like a smart move to me, but who knows what passes as smart in the Republican world.

[Lewis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSCvH9wlrQw

lol

[Pepe]

That's pretty good. :D

The whole Ted Cruz lookalikes is also quite lol.

[Pepe]

http://img.wennermedia.com/article-leads-horizontal/ted-cruz-lookalike-maury-5c76627e-5e6e-4589-89fd-b20b2dcb8dc1.jpg

[Boydy]

:lol:

[GS]

I don't do polls, so fuck that. I simply don't see anything that makes him 'viable' but it is all unimportant anyway, they are losing. Losing while also telling their voters that their opinion is worth fuck all does not seem like a smart move to me, but who knows what passes as smart in the Republican world.

Well, that's a fairly good reason why we can discount your view on the electability or otherwise of the different candidates.

The system for nominating their presidential candidate says that delegates are free to vote for whoever they want on the second ballot if there's no agreement on the first. In that instance, the party are, in my view, obliged to pick the candidate they think is most likely to win. Trump will have a plurality of votes, not a majority - so even if they picked Trump, you could say that the majority of primary voters didn't want him as the candidate.

Party elders will be looking at a contested convention as a way of positioning them to actually win the election, not an opportunity to appease a base which is increasingly separating itself from mainstream American opinion.

[Jimmy Floyd]

American polls are absolutely pointless, in fairness. Especially at this stage.

[GS]

Probably, but it's been fairly accurate in terms of identifying where key areas of strength or weakness lie for the candidates in polling. Then again, most of those polls are probably reinforcing what's obvious i.e. ethnic minorities hate Trump.

The whole election is going to boil down to about six states anyway.

[ItalAussie]

California is going to be insane. That's where it's going to be won or lost for the Republicans, and it's the most difficult state to campaign in.

[ItalAussie]

There was also a poll done recently where Clinton was put against the three Republicans. She thumped Trump, beat Cruz by a good distance but lost out to Kasich. How accurate that is would be hard to say, but Kasich would at least be competitive. Trump can't win, and Cruz is too weird.
The thing about Kasich is that nobody has really gone after him yet. He's positioning himself as a moderate, and he's being allowed to get away with it, because compared to Cruz, he is one. But his record as governor isn't actually that of a moderate at all.

If he made it to the general election, and the wolves started going for him, his record would get dragged out. And while he's fairly amiable, he's still mostly taken the kind of hard right stances that will leave him open to attacks that resonate with independents. Anti-women, anti-welfare, anti-health, etc. I'm not saying he'd tank totally, but I don't think that any comparative model involving Kasich as he stands now can be used as a serious reference point.

[ItalAussie]

I can't see a Cruz win. You'd think if it's going to be a contested convention, they'll go for Kasich on the grounds he might actually win the general. Even if Cruz did get through, Clinton would almost certainly beat him.Five thirty-eight made a fairly strong argument that a contested convention goes to Cruz:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/

If the convention is done on the first ballot, Trump wins.
If it's done on the second ballot, Cruz wins.
If it goes past the second ballot, I don't think anyone can make any sensible predictions anymore.

[GS]

The thing about Kasich is that nobody has really gone after him yet. He's positioning himself as a moderate, and he's being allowed to get away with it, because compared to Cruz, he is one. But his record as governor isn't actually that of a moderate at all.

If he made it to the general election, and the wolves started going for him, his record would get dragged out. And while he's fairly amiable, he's still mostly taken the kind of hard right stances that will leave him open to attacks that resonate with independents. Anti-women, anti-welfare, anti-health, etc. I'm not saying he'd tank totally, but I don't think that any comparative model involving Kasich as he stands now can be used as a serious reference point.

I wouldn't disagree, but the relative starting points are important in the context of how the campaign would go. Trump and Cruz are already perceived to be lunatics. Kasich may start to be exposed as he's scrutinised more, but it would take time for the ideas to stick and the Republicans will be going after Clinton just as hard.

You'd struggle to see a way back for Trump / Cruz at the minute.

[GS]

Five thirty-eight made a fairly strong argument that a contested convention goes to Cruz:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/

If the convention is done on the first ballot, Trump wins.
If it's done on the second ballot, Cruz wins.
If it goes past the second ballot, I don't think anyone can make any sensible predictions anymore.

It certainly could happen, but you can't see Cruz winning the general election. I assume the party leadership would want Kasich, or a compromise non-lunatic candidate if they can get away with it.

[ItalAussie]

I wouldn't disagree, but the relative starting points are important in the context of how the campaign would go. Trump and Cruz are already perceived to be lunatics. Kasich may start to be exposed as he's scrutinised more, but it would take time for the ideas to stick and the Republicans will be going after Clinton just as hard.

You'd struggle to see a way back for Trump / Cruz at the minute.Clinton is safe as houses, because she knows exactly what the Republicans are going to throw at her, and they've been throwing it for the last eight years. It's not like they've been holding something back; there's just no ammunition that they haven't been slinging already. It won't be simple for Clinton, but everyone knows exactly what is coming and what to expect.

Kasich would out-perform Cruz and Trump, because he's sane. But he's not a political moderate, and that would come out fairly quickly. That basically means the game changes totally for him when they hit the general election, and renders any comparative polling at this stage pretty much moot.


It certainly could happen, but you can't see Cruz winning the general election. I assume the party leadership would want Kasich, or a compromise non-lunatic candidate if they can get away with it.

When two candidates share 85% of the vote going into the convention, one of those candidates is going to walk out with the nomination. If they don't, there will be riots. There might be anyway. It's going to be fun to watch.

[elth]

The issue with Kasich is whether the party is really ready to blow itself up for a guy 85-90% of people who voted don't want. Trump's base will be livid. They're going to be mad either way of course, but at least Cruz has a solid level of natural party support and has won a significant number of states and delegates.

Trump winning on the first ballot is definitely the cleanest outcome, but failing that it will be really really messy if they don't come back to Cruz. He's winning the delegate selection process easily, which might be more important than whether or not he's actually electable anyway.

[ItalAussie]

I think the ideal outcome is:

Trump missing out by a handful of delegates
Cruz winning easily on the second ballot
Riots in the streets of Cleveland
Trump flipping out and running an independent campaign
Democrats just kind of quietly watching the madness unfold before winning 43 states due to the split vote

[ItalAussie]

There is a very real chance though, that if Trump gets within 20 or so candidates, that the Republican establishment will try and flip it in his favour by quietly having a word with some of the uncommitted delegates (such as those from Pennsylvania). They'll essentially be throwing away the Presidency, but the clearer heads will know by that point that it's gone already, and they'll be laying the groundwork for damage control.

The real question is what a Trump or Cruz candidacy mean for senate elections. If right-wing voters are so turned off by the candidates that they stay home, there are some pretty important races that could swing to the Democrats. The house is so gerrymandered that the Republicans couldn't lose it even if they were trying to, but the senate is the real battleground. I honestly think that the "establishment" have already gotten to this point, and now they're more concerned with trying to figure out how to salvage senate seats.

[phonics]

And get to confirm the leftiest lefty Supreme Court Judge of all time :drool:

[Henry]

I've lately been watching a bit of news in the morning before work, and it usually coincides with Hannity being on Fox. He (they) seem to have had a fairly unfriendly stance towards Cruz and Trump but have now softened considerably. Probably trying to get them inside the tent or something.

Hannity is such a gobshite. He had an interview with Cruz this morning where he started bitching that Cruz had gotten upset and angry, but if you listen to the thing, the only one doing that is Hannity himself. Totally threw the toys out of the pram when Cruz (admittedly) wouldn't answer his question about undemocratic voting rules. Then he had a guy who he introduced as his own attorney on to talk about it, and they spent half of the interview flirting with each other about how good their friendship was.

[Jimmy Floyd]

43 states is a low estimate I reckon. Nobody who isn't already a Trump enthusiast is going to break for Trump, plus Hillary is unusually strong in the south for a modern day Democrat.

He could do Walter Mondale numbers.

[phonics]

Enjoyed this. He has such an odd speaking style that I find it kind of mesmerising.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cg-JOTDU0AEFCRW.jpg

[elth]

Good night for Trump. Beat his targets by enough that he only needs to stop Cruz from sweeping Indiana to make it very hard for him not to win the nomination.

Sanders fighting hard still, but Clinton should basically be unbeatable from here, even if she narrowly loses a state tonight.

[Boydy]

Enjoyed this. He has such an odd speaking style that I find it kind of mesmerising.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cg-JOTDU0AEFCRW.jpg

I was confused by that at first because I was looking at the judge and thought he was Ted Cruz.

[bruhnaldo]

California is going to be insane. That's where it's going to be won or lost for the Republicans, and it's the most difficult state to campaign in.

the democrats haven't lost California since '88, i doubt that's going to change for a candidate who wants to deport half of their voting base (and their families)

[Jimmy Floyd]

I don't think Trump would win many states at all against Hillary. Maybe the likes of Wyoming and Montana. I could see her winning everything with an east coast.

Dunno about Texas.

[Henry]

These are apparently going to be the two most unpopular nominees of all time, according to polling.

[GS]

Clinton beats Trump comfortably, assuming something 'game changing' doesn't happen like an indictment.

[GS]

Cruz is going to announce Fiorina as his running mate. That'll be interesting.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Will it?

[GS]

Not really, no.

[Henry]

They're denouncing Trump as a liberal, I see. And Fiorina started singing.

Bizarre.

[Spoonsky]

What an incredibly unappealing pair of people (Cruz and Fiorina).

Personally, I will be glad to be out of the country when Clinton-Trump turns into the ugliest election in national history.

[Pepe]

One of the debates will be held at my uni. Not too long ago we got an email saying that if the 'campus community' get any tickets, they would be given to students via a lottery. If? What sort of bollocks is this?

[Bartholomert]

One of the debates will be held at my uni. Not too long ago we got an email saying that if the 'campus community' get any tickets, they would be given to students via a lottery. If? What sort of bollocks is this?

Special interests bruh

[Bartholomert]

Good to see the same people dismissing a Trump win for the Republican nominee are dismissing a Trump presidential win; you heard it here first, Trump will win and win resoundingly.

[Davgooner]

If he does it'll be because he's continues to move to the centre, and even outflanks Hillary to the left on some issues, so how would that sit?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'd love nothing more than for The Donald to smash Hillary. He just won't. He's too polarising.

Trump smashing Hillary. There's a porno not to make.

[Henry]

Good to see the same people dismissing a Trump win for the Republican nominee are dismissing a Trump presidential win; you heard it here first, Trump will win and win resoundingly.

I think we should have a wager on that. Winner sets the losers avatar for 6 months.

[John]

He couldn't pick anything for you more embarrassing than what you have now, so that's a no lose wager for you.

I reckon if Mert was around a bit more he'd be doing a decent Ginner/Sebo tribute act.

[phonics]

Trump smashing Hillary. There's a porno not to make.

https://i.imgur.com/gnMm9Tl.jpg

[ItalAussie]

the democrats haven't lost California since '88, i doubt that's going to change for a candidate who wants to deport half of their voting base (and their families)

I was unclear. I meant the primary.

[bruhnaldo]

Ah, gotcha. Appreciate you taking the time to clarify.

[bruhnaldo]

I honest to God think Trump has a much better chance than what the media would like you to believe.

When it comes down to Trump vs. Hillary I think there's a a good deal of people who would, as was previously alluded by others, see Trump as more of a centralist candidate than a true conservative republican. What many have said as a slight against Trump being the republican nominee (his documented liberal leanings on certain issues) could help him rise above Hillary.

If you really think about it, Hillary is the exact politician that Trump has been railing against this entire time anyways. I think a lot of Americans might weigh up the lesser of two evils and say "Maybe we need to try a different, less politically inclined direction." Especially when it comes to people 40+ and 50+. They'll try to draw parallel to the Reagan administration and convince themselves that way.

I think Hillary has a strong base in place but I struggle to see how her policies and rhetoric will actually win over any voters. Not saying Trump's is much better, but the sensational fanaticism that Trump pushes is done so in a way that can romanticize, as opposed to the grating rhetoric that Hillary generally comes out with.

It's also worth noting that this is still America and there's a large portion of the country (not a majority by any means) that will treat the election like American Idol/Big Brother and vote strictly for things that really have nothing to do with either candidates policy.

All in all, there's a lot of factors that could easily favor Teflon Don that I'm not so sure Hillary will be able to combat in a way that doesn't come off as (more) snobbish (than Donald is).

[Henry]

Ted Cruz is "Lucifer in the flesh", says John Boehner.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36163188

[ItalAussie]

I can't see Trump winning the general election.

But I didn't think he'd get this far, so what do I know?

[Lewis]

Does he have any sort of constituency beyond pissed-off white people (and isn't it actually just pissed-off white men)? Other than with the help of a bizarrely low turn-out, where does he find the numbers to avoid an absolute battering?

[GS]

Does he have any sort of constituency beyond pissed-off white people (and isn't it actually just pissed-off white men)? Other than with the help of a bizarrely low turn-out, where does he find the numbers to avoid an absolute battering?

This is it. Given his misogyny, you can't see him winning the percentage of the women's vote he would need. Similarly, he's surely going to get battered in any area of the country where there's a large non-white vote. How does he overcome that plus a system already weighing in favour of the Democrats? I can't see it.

[Hux]

It's been a fight for second for quite some time. This explains why the financial industry has been backing Clinton: the industry is apolitical (not to mention chock full of professional gamblers).

Finance had backed Rubio and Bush prior to their departures, but now the vast majority of contributions are going to the pantsuit.

[phonics]

Anyone seen the WhiteHouse Correspondents Dinner this time around? Any good?

[ItalAussie]

I thought it was one of Obama's best, He had some cracking lines.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/1/11549262/obama-white-house-correspondents-dinner

There was definitely an edge to the comedy which he wouldn't have had at the start of his term.

[GS]

I thought it was one of Obama's best, He had some cracking lines.

And on the sixth day, He created Obamacare and saw that it was good.

[ItalAussie]

And on the sixth day, He created Obamacare and saw that it was good.

No idea what you're driving at.

[GS]

You capitalised the pronoun for no reason whatsoever.

It doesn't matter. :moop:

[Disco]

You'd think Ital of all people would get that.

[ItalAussie]

Oh! Didn't catch that. Actually meant to be a period at the end of the first part, rather than a comma.

[phonics]

The only thing playing into Trumps hands is that this will be the most unpopular election of all time meaning a low turnout could help him. The only problem with this being that he's so unpopular it's record breaking.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChZg1UmWwAAeLL2.jpg

[GS]

I thought it was one of Obama's best, He had some cracking lines.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/1/11549262/obama-white-house-correspondents-dinner

There was definitely an edge to the comedy which he wouldn't have had at the start of his term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIDEGN4Js40

I think this is great.

[Spoonsky]

How was Obama at 23.7% unfavorable back in 2008? Straight racism or what? All he talked about was HOPE and UNITY.

[ItalAussie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIDEGN4Js40

I think this is great.That's great. Biden and Boehner were really good sports about it, too.

[Henry]

How was Obama at 23.7% unfavorable back in 2008? Straight racism or what? All he talked about was HOPE and UNITY.

There was a lot of smearing going on at the time if you remember - Muslim, Kenyan, socialism, black supremacy and so forth.

The increasing polarisation/ dislike for politics is very evident from those stats as time progresses.

[GS]

It seems Trump is going to win Indiana well, surely effectively tying up the nomination.

Grim.

[mugbull]

Cruz is out boys. Glorious day.

[elth]

Remarkable. Something really changed for Trump just before New York - his polls shot up 10% in about a week, after he'd struggled to clear 35% for about a year before that. And it's held up in all of the primaries since, including tonight where he's outperformed his long term average in Indiana by 12.5%.

Whatever it was, he seems to have convinced enough people that it's all over. Again, utterly remarkable and if he doesn't kick off WW3 and nuclear winter us all, the number of political science PhD's based on this race might exceed the number of votes Rubio got.

Nice consolation night for Sanders.

[ItalAussie]

You have to think that a result like this is probably going to make other nations a bit more wary of the US in general. That much power even potentially in the hands of individuals who are that unpredictable will surely lead to some serious international side-eyeing.

[Bartholomert]

Does he have any sort of constituency beyond pissed-off white people (and isn't it actually just pissed-off white men)? Other than with the help of a bizarrely low turn-out, where does he find the numbers to avoid an absolute battering?

Yes.

People agree with him, America is a fundamentally conservative country, and they absolutely hate the cowering obsequious un-American retreat from undisputed global power that they've had to swallow in the name of tolerance and so called necessity. Time to make America great again. All hail the God Emperor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1w4IxCXIxU

[ItalAussie]

It occurred to me the other day that Trump is basically Silvio Berlusconi.

The real question is whether America is Italy. :D

[Vim]

And he rounds off his campaign by elbowing his wife in the face. :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROrtyz9v5q4

[John Arne]

Jab, then an elbow. That's the biggest impact he'll have in American politics.

[Davgooner]

America is a fundamentally conservative country,

Hmmm.

[John Arne]

I don't think I have ever meet an American under the age of 35 who is a republican. Many of the older people I meet are, but never the young-middle aged ones.

Maybe it's just that those who travel more, tend to be more liberal.

[niko_cee]

Younger people, in general, tend to be more liberal. It's only when you have something you want to keep hold of that your turn to the other side.

That and about 99% of Americans never leave the motherland, so your Republican voters are probably in there.

[phonics]

Think it's up to 13% of Americans have a passport these days...

[Pepe]

I don't think I have ever meet an American under the age of 35 who is a republican. Many of the older people I meet are, but never the young-middle aged ones.

Maybe it's just that those who travel more, tend to be more liberal.

I have.

[Vim]

I'm pretty sure Trump and activists like Milo Yannopoulos (sp?) are bringing some young voters to the Republican party, actually.

[Henry]

Yes.

People agree with him,

You haven't said which people. Cite some polls.

I predict that when he gets his ass handed to him in the general election, you'll be crying about some conspiracy or other designed to keep him out.

[Disco]

One of the benefits of Harold getting banned is that I'd completely forgotten that Milo tosser even existed.

[bruhnaldo]

I don't think I have ever meet an American under the age of 35 who is a republican.

Hello. I'm "Bruh". Nice to meet you.

[bruhnaldo]

Also shout out to Milo DA GAWD.

I love that little homo.

[Pepe]

Kasich gone too.

The Donald. :cool:

[Byron]

That's it. The whole has turned upside down.

[phonics]

Hello. I'm "Bruh". Nice to meet you.

http://i.imgur.com/NkZILq8.png

They really should nuke you guys off the map.

[bruhnaldo]

Lmao. Florida is certainly a very, very interesting place.

[GS]

Trump with the nomination. Horrendous day.

[Henry]

Kasich gone too.

And promptly being considered for the VP nod, apparently. Probably why he was staying in.

[Vim]

I read somewhere he was staying in to get some connections and lay the groundwork for a possible 2020 bid.

Either way, Trump v Clinton is an absolute shitfest for several reasons. I think both are part Berlusconi, in that Trump has the same humour and Clinton has the same criminality. Between the two, I much prefer Trump, not that my opinion matters.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'd rather have dinner with Trump, but I'd probably rather Hillary was president.

[GS]

You couldn't vote for Trump based on some of his public statements. Clinton's a shitehawk as well, but less so. In a battle of the lesser evil, Clinton gets your vote unless you're a loon.

[Vim]

I just can't seem to bring myself not to absolutely despise Hillary.

[GS]

As do most people, but the fucking state of this - http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/. You can't vote for him, unless you're a loon.

[Bernanke]

McCain endorsing Trump is just sad.

[Spoonsky]

People, especially young people, let their personal hatred of Hillary cloud their decision. It's absolutely no decision between the two. Clinton will continue Obama's policies and philosophy, Trump will be very dangerous to a lot of vulnerable people in this country.

[elth]

I don't really get the visceral hatred for Clinton. She's just a politician with a long history of doing politician things.

[ItalAussie]

I don't really get the visceral hatred for Clinton. She's just a politician with a long history of doing politician things.

The only way I can see the hatred is if you give credence to the Republican narrative over the past decade, which is about as unbiased as her autobiography would be.

[niko_cee]

Husband and wife presidents is probably a bigger step in the wrong direction than sticking a maniac like Trump in charge. Not that he is a maniac, particularly, more a figure of fun. He's an American Boris, replacing intellect and wit with brash vulgarity and piles of money. In many ways, he's the most American thing since sliced Uncle Sam. Maybe not 'modern America' though, whatever that is. Whenever I see one of his supporters on the news they do come across a bit like the sort of deranged sex pests who support the pick-up artist industry and have a general chip on their shoulder about the non-subservient existence of women in the modern world - which I suppose would explain why women are wary of him, and Mert is such a fan.

[Raoul Duke]

I feel like a lot of the underlying Hillary hate is just basic venal misogyny which lurks under a lot of American society. As Elth says, she's no worse (really) than any other political asshat. Obama, Bernie and perhaps Bloomberg are the only ones in recent memory who would represent any real change from expected norms (and that basically only comes down to race and campaign finance source).

[Davgooner]

I wouldn't include Obama in that. He's knee-deep in corporate money and has been a fucking massive let down. Hilary's campaign and supporters have been crying sexism for months when faced with legitimate criticisms of her record and her policies. There's been a lot of whinging about the fact she's got so much grief about the way her campaign is funded when as you say, everyone's at it; she'd have a point if she was running against Biden or someone similar and was getting grief. Unfortunately she's running against the most liberal senator in the country so the contrast is plain for all to see.

Don't forget the FBI (headed by a massive republican) are currently conducting an investigation into her. Has a presidential candidate ever been indicted during an election campaign?

[Davgooner]

Clinton will continue Obama's policies and philosophy, Trump will be very dangerous to a lot of vulnerable people in this country.

Depends whether you think the former is a good thing. Trump will probably see the Republicans lose both houses within two years and a progressive landslide in 2020.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I saw Obama described the other day - by the Guardian's Sir Michael White, no less - as a 'class act, but second rate president'. I thought that summed him up quite well.

[Lewis]

'Hillary' combines vacuousness and arrogance in such a way that she makes Tony Blair look substantial. Still, we live in hope for that 'progressive landslide'.

[ItalAussie]

It's crazy to me that people would think Obama's done a bad job. Republicans yelling at him doesn't mean a damn thing. Any one of the nuclear deal with Iran, actually getting the healthcare through, and being in charge of the stabilizing economy would have cemented the legacy of any other President.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/4-charts-prove-just-successful-president-obama/

And even if you don't think what he did was good, it's impossible to argue that he hasn't been incredibly consequential. Especially given the stone-walling he had to stare down.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents

[Henry]

He's the first president never to have had a growth rate exceeding 3 percent during any year he's been in office. You can chalk that down to circumstance and so forth, but his failure to make substantial reforms to the way the economy works is at least partly to blame.

[ItalAussie]

Let's not forget the state it was in when he took it over. He stabilised the ship.

Again, individual influence, etc. But if you're going to blame him for one, you have to give him credit for the other. There are charts from the first article give a pretty decent picture of the situation he's left the economy in when compared to what it was when he got a hold of it:


http://i1.wp.com/www.forwardprogressives.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-01-at-4.38.03-AM.png?resize=492%2C287

http://i2.wp.com/www.forwardprogressives.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Jobstreak.jpg

http://i1.wp.com/www.forwardprogressives.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-01-at-4.48.00-AM.png?resize=506%2C290


Again, how much credit you give him for that is up to you. But it's pretty clear that he's leaving the economy in a dramatically stronger position than it was when he got given it.

[Pepe]

The 'she's just as shit as every other politician' defense has to be the lamest defense I've ever heard. Well, it's probably only behind the 'misogyny' one.

[mugbull]

Obama's been fantastic on so many issues. "Growth rate" is a generally pointless stat for non-third world countries these days, and in any case as president your job is to try and set market trends, rather than control the entire economy. Ours has been doing quite fine since he took office; the Fed Funds rate is almost negative, and there's no need for any structural reforms at the moment. Plus, he's very good at directing national discourse, for better or worse. And doing that Iran deal knowing full well that he'd get shafted by most American media and politicians afterwards was ballsy as fuck.

[Spoonsky]

I think Obama's achieved about as much as he could have within the system, and given the state of Congress. The criticisms that come in are that he hasn't changed the system well enough (hence Berniemania), and that he's betrayed the promise of 2008, both of which have some validity; but he's done pretty bloody well to achieve some of the things he has.

I don't know if Obama's the best president of recent years (can you ever know until years later?), but he is certainly the smoothest. He's basically a god among liberals, leading to the odd situation where Hillary gets lambasted for wanting to continue his policies, yet nobody will criticize the man himself. I think it's partly that liberals love him for being the first black president just as much as conservatives hate him for it.

[elth]

The 'she's just as shit as every other politician' defense has to be the lamest defense I've ever heard. Well, it's probably only behind the 'misogyny' one.

This basically reinforces my point - I admit I don't get it, and someone who obviously viscerally hates Clinton calls it a "lame defense" without any further elaboration. I literally have no idea what you think is the problem with her, and you think that's even an attempt to defend her?

I'm not any closer to getting it because of whatever you think it is you're demonstrating with that comment.

[Pepe]

Viscerally hate her :*****)

[Davgooner]

Obama would always look good versus the shitstorm that went before him, but versus what he ran on and the HOPE of 2008 it's been shit. Started from the centre on almost every issue, implemented a Republican healthcare plan, and is capping it off with a horrible attempt at appealing to them with his SC pick. I give him credit for his new approach to foreign policy, but generally it's been turgid incremental progress still restrained by corporate interests, to which he's as tied as anyone else.

[Shindig]

He was hamstrung a bit by a Republican House of Representatives or something, kinda, sorta, possibly.

[Bernanke]

Jake Tapper ‏@jaketapper 1m1 minute ago
Breaking -- @SpeakerRyan tells @CNN he cannot endorse/support @realDonaldTrump right now --

Ha! Apparently not since 1972 (George McGovern) has a prominent member of a party refused to support their presidential candidate...

[Henry]

LOL at the greatest war criminal of modern times refusing to endorse Trump.

[Boydy]

Paul Ryan is the greatest war criminal of modern times?

[Magic]

Vladimir Putin is the Speaker of the House?

[Boydy]

Bashar Al-Assad refuses to endorse Trump?

[Shindig]

Donald Trump refuses to endorse Donald Trump?

[Henry]

http://time.com/4318875/george-jeb-bush-donald-trump-endorse/

[GS]

He's the first president never to have had a growth rate exceeding 3 percent during any year he's been in office. You can chalk that down to circumstance and so forth, but his failure to make substantial reforms to the way the economy works is at least partly to blame.

You've cited Obama's economic record as a positive, and questioned why the Conservatives haven't undertaken similar steps to him to achieve the same success. What is your actual view on this, other than suiting the point you want to make on the day?


I think Obama's achieved about as much as he could have within the system, and given the state of Congress. The criticisms that come in are that he hasn't changed the system well enough (hence Berniemania), and that he's betrayed the promise of 2008, both of which have some validity; but he's done pretty bloody well to achieve some of the things he has.

I don't know if Obama's the best president of recent years (can you ever know until years later?), but he is certainly the smoothest. He's basically a god among liberals, leading to the odd situation where Hillary gets lambasted for wanting to continue his policies, yet nobody will criticize the man himself. I think it's partly that liberals love him for being the first black president just as much as conservatives hate him for it.

One of Obama's big problems is that he campaigned with a particular rhetoric that he was never, ever going to fulfil. HOPE and CHANGE are great campaign themes, but he's still going to go into work every day dealing with the exact same checks, balances and constraints as every other president. Getting any sort of healthcare deal through was good work, albeit he did so with a Democratic congressional majority and even then it was hacked away at. Still, he pushed it through and fair play. Iran and Cuba will both hopefully be successes, but those are still in the "too early to tell" stage.

Lack of clarity on Syria, and a failure to deal with Libya post-Gaddafi have been significant failures, in my view.

I'd agree with Ital that he's done well economically, particularly as I think we're all too prone to assuming politicians can actually improve the economy significantly through unilateral policies. He can't move global markets, much as he might want to. He helped to stabilise matters after the recession and Lehman Brothers, and beyond that there's probably not a huge deal he can do.

Ultimately he's faced a Congress which thinks he's some sort of devil, and Republicans who seem to have decided to block everything he wants to do out of spite. In that context, he's done as well as he can. He just raised expectations far too high in 2008. And he was following Bush, for fuck sake. Anything looked better at the time.

[Boydy]

http://time.com/4318875/george-jeb-bush-donald-trump-endorse/

See, you posted your original thing about a war criminal right after Bernanke's post about Paul Ryan not endorsing Trump. It wasn't very clear.

[Boydy]

You've cited Obama's economic record as a positive, and questioned why the Conservatives haven't undertaken similar steps to him to achieve the same success. What is your actual view on this, other than suiting the point you want to make on the day?


Probably that it's positive compared to the Tories but not as positive as it could or should be.

[Lewis]

Jeffrey Sachs wrote about this last year, and they're basically the same when you account for us 1) taking a slightly bigger hit in the first place; 2) being more exposed to shitty Europe; and 3) them rolling in cheap gas and oil.

[GS]

Tories are scum, mate. Did you not get the leaflet?

[elth]

The thing with Obama is that I think he more or less did the best possible job that could be done, which unfortunately fell a long way short of what he'd promised, and well short of what were with hindsight pretty unrealistic expectations.

But if I knew the future in 2008, I still would have said he was easily the best available candidate.

[ItalAussie]

In the end, the big three are economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. I think most of us agree that he did a decent job on the first two, and managed to do the best job he could have done given the circumstances. It's less than what he campaigned on, but obstructionist Republicans weren't a part of his campaign platform, either.

On foreign policy, he'd largely been middling out, with solid arguments for and against. But I'd say that Iran and Cuba knock it into favourable territory, and both of those will be important components of his legacy. It's not a slam dunk like the other two, because there's still questions over how Syria was handled. But to be honest, I don't know that it wouldn't have been a disaster no matter how it was approached.

[Henry]

Probably that it's positive compared to the Tories but not as positive as it could or should be.

Yep, that. Stimulus was the right thing to do, so he deserves kudos for that and for facing down the austerity-hawks within in the US. However what stimulus he did was too small and poorly directed. He also didn't do much to fix the underlying issues that caused the crash - he just basically fixed up the system back to the way it had been.

By comparison, the Tories descended into flat-earth territory, choosing an austerity program that is (to put it mildly) counter-productive and damaging to the economy. They've done this because of an ideological opposition to the concept of the welfare state itself, all the while posing as moderates.

[Pepe]

He didn't really do much for blacks, did he? He also deported more people than Bush.

[GS]

By comparison, the Tories descended into flat-earth territory, choosing an austerity program that is (to put it mildly) counter-productive and damaging to the economy. They've done this because of an ideological opposition to the concept of the welfare state itself, all the while posing as moderates.

Righto.

[phonics]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChzZo6LW0AIRYPa.jpg:large

:x

[Bernanke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiG0AE8zdTU

What a don.

[Bartholomert]

I don't think I have ever meet an American under the age of 35 who is a republican. Many of the older people I meet are, but never the young-middle aged ones.

Maybe it's just that those who travel more, tend to be more liberal.

Recent survey at Duke showed that only 1/3rd of people involved in Greek life (about 25% of the school) identified as Democrat (and most of those were probably in sororities). You just need to hang out with less poor people.

[GS]

Yes, fuck the poor!!

Mug.

[Bartholomert]

You haven't said which people. Cite some polls.

I predict that when he gets his ass handed to him in the general election, you'll be crying about some conspiracy or other designed to keep him out.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39

Trump 41. Clinton 39.

He hasn't even gotten started.

[John Arne]

Recent survey at Duke showed that only 1/3rd of people involved in Greek life (about 25% of the school) identified as Democrat (and most of those were probably in sororities). You just need to hang out with less poor people.

I'm talking mostly about business owners and who I would deem predominately middle-class folk.

Also, is this week your "women are inferior" week? I'm losing track of the rota.

[Henry]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39

Trump 41. Clinton 39.

He hasn't even gotten started.

That poll is way out of line from all of the others.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Unsurprising since Rasmussen is known for pro-Republican bias.

[Bartholomert]

That poll is way out of line from all of the others.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Unsurprising since Rasmussen is known for pro-Republican bias.

Clinton +6.5 with 6 months to go until Election day and he hasn't even started campaigning for the general election. Only an idiot would claim that Clinton was safe, the sort of idiot who thought Trump wouldn't ever secure the Republican nomination ;)

[Bartholomert]

I'm talking mostly about business owners and who I would deem predominately middle-class folk.

Also, is this week your "women are inferior" week? I'm losing track of the rota.

Eh no, just statistics:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx

I think our entire fraternity had 1 democrat and 1 'moderate' and the rest were Republican/Libertarian.

[Davgooner]

Might be interesting to see how the markets react if he gets near the presidency. His comments on national debt the other day were a bit worrying to say the least.

[GS]

He hasn't a fucking notion. It's different getting a party nomination compared to winning an election across the whole country. Most centrists / swing voters will surely be appalled at the sort of shite he comes out with.

[Spoonsky]

Eh no, just statistics:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx

I think our entire fraternity had 1 democrat and 1 'moderate' and the rest were Republican/Libertarian.'

You're talking about a frat at Duke, it's always going to be a pretty conservative place. Not really a representative sample.

[ItalAussie]

Clinton +6.5 with 6 months to go until Election day and he hasn't even started campaigning for the general election. Only an idiot would claim that Clinton was safe, the sort of idiot who thought Trump wouldn't ever secure the Republican nomination ;)

I wouldn't say she's safe with definiteness, but even that would be less silly than pulling out a Rasmussen poll which is wildly out of line with every other poll.

A lot of things can change in the coming months, but Rasmussen's pointlessness is as dependable as ever.

[Lewis]

Didn't 'The Donald' just say he would look at restructuring their debt (albeit in his usual piss-poor way of explaining things)? They could easily get away with that.

[ItalAussie]

Might be interesting to see how the markets react if he gets near the presidency. His comments on national debt the other day were a bit worrying to say the least.

Yeah, I read that. The whole system is predicated on the US being the safest credit risk in the entire world. If he erodes that idea by trying to mess around with repayments, then that will have fascinating and very dangerous knock-on effects. Can't just declare bankruptcy to get out of it, either.

[Lewis]

The whole system used to be predicated on them having enough gold to back up their currency until it suddenly wasn't.

[ItalAussie]

Are you a gold standard man, then?

[Lewis]

No, I diverge from the cranks on that one. I'm just saying that if any country could mess people around and still count on there being a queue of lenders it's the Americans.

[elth]

The debt thing is so stupid. Why would the US need to renegotiate debt issued in its own currency?

That is straight up the dumbest thing Trump's said this whole campaign.

Having said that, I agree with Mert that it's foolish to write off Trump based on polling (or at all, frankly). Polls change, and they got him horrifically wrong before.

[Bartholomert]

He hasn't a fucking notion. It's different getting a party nomination compared to winning an election across the whole country. Most centrists / swing voters will surely be appalled at the sort of shite he comes out with.

Most of his appeal is with centerist / swing voters, it's the conservatives he has issues with really.

[Bartholomert]

Didn't 'The Donald' just say he would look at restructuring their debt (albeit in his usual piss-poor way of explaining things)? They could easily get away with that.

The US has disgusting amounts of soft leverage it's not realizing. If Trump just did what he did best, maximize the power of his leverage through negotiation to get the best deal possible given the circumstances, it would be an absolute boon to the US economy.

[phonics]

Boondoggle, more like.

[niko_cee]

Is it actually the position of the Republican party to oppose all forms of abortion?

[Henry]

Is it actually the position of the Republican party to oppose all forms of abortion?

I don't think that party policies exist in the US the same way as they do in the UK. It might be for some Republicans, but it's not for all.

[niko_cee]

Ah, I see. Was just reading a bit on 'the platform' (????)


All — including those chosen to support Trump — can vote however they want on the platform. Many conservatives say they will use that vote to keep Trump from reshaping GOP dogma against abortion, for free trade and on other issues. But presidents are not bound by their party platforms and typically ignore planks that don't fit their agenda once in office.

Even so, a showdown could be an embarrassment he'd seek to avoid by not pushing divisive changes.

"If the party walks away from any of its clearly cut social, family values issues, it will be an issue," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council and GOP delegate from Louisiana. "We're not just going to fall in line because he's the nominee."

Trump has said he would seek to include exceptions for rape and incest to the GOP platform's opposition to abortion. He's also flouted the party platform by repeatedly criticizing trade deals and calling NATO obsolete

And wondered if that last bit would be in any way controversial (as the artcile seems to suggest it would be)?

[John Arne]

Eh no, just statistics:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx

I think our entire fraternity had 1 democrat and 1 'moderate' and the rest were Republican/Libertarian.

I'm not questioning the Duke survey, it's the fact that you thought the fact that they were women was at all relevant.


(and most of those were probably in sororities).

[phonics]

"This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money. I hate to tell you. So there’s never a default"

:facepalm:

[Henry]

Well, that's technically true, but he's still all over the place because he doesn't get to decide to print money (the Fed does) and doing so to cover debt repayments could cause all sorts of other problems.

[elth]

The idea that the Fed would refuse to allow the US to meet its debt obligations is pretty unrealistic. They're nominally independent but their regulatory mandate is given to them by the Government.

[Bartholomert]

Reuters credible enough for you blue hairs?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0Y21TN?

Behold the God Emperor, his reign will soon be upon us...

http://www.sharedwanderlust.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/god-emperor-trump-small.jpg

[Pepe]

:cool:

I am warming up to the idea. It is going to be tremendous entertainment, plus potentially a good test for the so-called 'checks and balances' system.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'd fucking love a Trump win just for the look on Hillary's face. Also, it wouldn't actually do anyone any harm, because the Fed / joint chiefs / Bilderberg society / shape-shifting lizards actually run things.

[Pepe]

Agree on nothing would actually happen. The whole 'scared of Trump' is heavily overblown.

Imagine him in a UN meeting, or some climate summit. :drool:

[Davgooner]

In other polling news: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/05/gop-quickly-unifies-around-trump-clinton-still-has-modest-lead.html#more


There's been a lot of recent coverage of Donald Trump's embrace of various conspiracy theories, so we asked about a bunch of them on this poll to see which ones his supporters believe and which ones even they say are a bridge too far. Among voters with a favorable opinion of Trump:

-65% think President Obama is a Muslim, only 13% think he's a Christian.

-59% think President Obama was not born in the United States, only 23% think that he was.

-27% think vaccines cause autism, 45% don't think they do, another 29% are not sure.

-24% think Antonin Scalia was murdered, just 42% think he died naturally, another 34% are unsure.

-7% think Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK, 55% think he was not involved, another 38% are unsure.

And closing the loop on the greatest conspiracy theory of this election- a rare one that Trump didn't embrace- 5% of voters nationally think Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, 18% are unsure, and 77% find Cruz not guilty of the charge of being a serial killer in diapers. So at least he has that going for him.

:clap:

[Boydy]

Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer.

[Pepe]

http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Stryper.jpg

[Bartholomert]

Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer.

Just saying, I've never seen Ted Cruz and the zodiac killer in the same room. Think about it.

[Spoonsky]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/us-election-donald-trump-surges-into-tie-with-hillary-clinton-as/

Might be time for Bernie to call it a day. He's playing with fire without much to gain at this point. Needs to start endorsing down the ticket.

[Pepe]

Nah, he has to take it all the way to the end. Fear politics can fuck right off.

[Spoonsky]

I don't know if it's fear politics. I decried people who said the same thing back when he still had a genuine chance, but he really doesn't. I'm just not sure what the point is now.

American elections are way too long. I'm sick of everyone, including Bernie, and rightfully so; if any other celebrity got half as much sustained news coverage people would hate them. I really don't think it's possible to be so horribly exposed to the public for 18 months and still end up well-liked. It's become a media circus. Britain has it right with six-week election cycles.

[Pepe]

The point is to get as many votes as possible to show that his agenda is one with which many people agree with and one which could make a viable candidate in the future. He can also go to the convention and try to pull Hilary as much towards the left as possible (at least on paper, we all know where she is going to sway once in power.)

Totally agree that the primaries are way, way too long. I said it before and I'll say it again: everyone should vote at the same time. Give them a couple months to campaign, have a nationwide voting day and be done with it.

[Spoonsky]

I just don't think he has anything to prove at this point. He's won 20 states. The agenda is clearly viable. I agree about the convention, though I don't exactly understand how that will work in reality.

[Davgooner]

He takes it all the way on the hope that she gets indicted or that the super delegates actually do their job and pick the more viable candidate.

Also, hark at 'crazy Bernie'. :D

[bruhnaldo]

"super delegates" are the biggest sham.

[GS]

Sanders wasn't even a member of the party until recently, so I don't see why Democratic party super delegates should be rushing to support him. He's riding the party, which is fine, but that's one of the consequences of doing so.

[Davgooner]

Oh they won't; they exist to act as a safety should a 'radical' candidate gain any kind of traction, and promote a more viable establishment figure instead. What happens when the radical still looks a lot more viable than the chosen one? LOL. I hope he runs until the end and fucking takes the piss at the convention.

[GS]

If the Republicans had similar safeguards, they wouldn't have ended up with Donald Trump. You can see it both ways.

[Spoonsky]

Bernie won Oregon and they split Kentucky yesterday.

I do wonder how Bernie would do as a third-party candidate. He pulls much more from independents (who are now a political majority in the country) than Clinton does, and probably more than Trump does. While obviously he's to the left of both of them, he attracts the working class in a way that Trump does and Clinton doesn't; in a way he's sort of a hybrid of the two. It would probably still end up with Trump in office, but it would be a fascinating election.

[Bartholomert]

Lord Trump beating Clinton by 3 in new national poll:

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/733075738061111296

[Bartholomert]

God Emperor trolling Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279964-trump-on-warren-you-mean-pocahontas

[Disco]

I see people making this god emperor reference but I don't think they realise quite what it means.

[Davgooner]

It's that weird crowd that are into men's rights and idolise pick-up artists.

[Serj]

And really, really enjoy using the word "cuck".

[Bartholomert]

It's that weird crowd that are into men's rights and idolise pick-up artists.


And really, really enjoy using the word "cuck".

Beta cucks detected.

[Bartholomert]

Salon.com (Marxist Propaganda Machine) defends Trump, slams NYT and PC feminists: http://www.salon.com/2016/05/19/camille_paglia_pc_feminists_misfire_again_as_fossi lized_fearful_media_cant_touch_donald_trump/

All Knees Shall Bend.

[Lewis]

It's Camille Paglia, rather than nonce-loving Salon. The 'alt right' (or whatever it is) crowd seething over Facebook is quite lol. It's a private service, lads. They can do what they want.

[Davgooner]

Just seen the footage from the Nevada Democratic convention. Fuck me. Voice votes are bad enough but that was out and out fraud. The fallout is spectacular as well with the corrupt lass saying she feared for her life, and Clinton's news networks being OUTRAGED at the violence of Bernie supporters, which at this stage amounts to video of a guy picking up a chair and then putting it back down.

Fucking laughable. These wankers deserve Trump. :nodd:

[Bartholomert]

Just seen the footage from the Nevada Democratic convention. Fuck me. Voice votes are bad enough but that was out and out fraud. The fallout is spectacular as well with the corrupt lass saying she feared for her life, and Clinton's news networks being OUTRAGED at the violence of Bernie supporters, which at this stage amounts to video of a guy picking up a chair and then putting it back down.

Fucking laughable. These wankers deserve Trump. :nodd:

The mainstream media outlets are center-left establishment indoctrination / propaganda centers masquerading as 'news'; I'm glad even Democrats / liberals are waking up this this this reality.

[Davgooner]

People have been waking up for a while; their viewing figures are increasingly diabolical and their average viewer is not far off the Fox demographic. They're so obsessed with not offending people, especially the right, that they stay middle of the road on every issue and play dum, even when facts point in one way of the other. In this cycle people have had their eyes opened to the fact that this supposed 'liberal' media is comprised of massive corporations headed by millionnaire anchors, who surprise surprise haven't got much time for anything left of centre economically. CNN in particular is a fucking disgrace, should be forced to declare that their parent company is a huge contributor to Clinton's campaign, and should stop passing off Hilary staffers as 'political analysts'.

[Bartholomert]

People have been waking up for a while; their viewing figures are increasingly diabolical and their average viewer is not far off the Fox demographic. They're so obsessed with not offending people, especially the right, that they stay middle of the road on every issue and play dum, even when facts point in one way of the other. In this cycle people have had their eyes opened to the fact that this supposed 'liberal' media is comprised of massive corporations headed by millionnaire anchors, who surprise surprise haven't got much time for anything left of centre economically. CNN in particular is a fucking disgrace, should be forced to declare that their parent company is a huge contributor to Clinton's campaign, and should stop passing off Hilary staffers as 'political analysts'.

Tbf that may also have to do with the fact that anything left of center economically has been exhaustively discredited in practice.

Although generally yes the reporting is very biased against Bernie.

[Lewis]

The Ron Paul Effect. I wonder how he would have done this year.

[Pepe]

As poorly as Rand I would guess.

[Lewis]

Ron Paul would have been much better placed to tap into the mentals then the boy. Then again, Ted Cruz also covers the Texas-based survivalist stuff. Poor Ron Paul.

[Pepe]

There were far too many options for mentals to support, and no one would have come close to the Donald.

[Lewis]

He could have run a 'Bernie'-like campaign (#theRonandonly?), with pictures of him being arrested in the seventies protesting against inflation.

[Pepe]

:D

Not sure his demographic 'gets' social media. I guess he could have gone for email chains.

[Bartholomert]

The Ron Paul Effect. I wonder how he would have done this year.

There aren't enough out and out libertarians in America and culturally Ron Paul simply doesn't have the charisma / gumption to have effectively challenged the liberal status quo (ref: political correctness, media bias and dishonesty, etc.), so I don't think he would have appealed to the 'disaffected masses' in the same way as Trump.

[Spoonsky]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/16/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-the-white-working-class

This is quite smart re: Trump and the working class.

[Bartholomert]

Trump leading in another poll, 46-44:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/post-primary-rally-boosts-trump-albeit-challenges-aplenty/story?id=39265102

[Bartholomert]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/16/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-the-white-working-class

This is quite smart re: Trump and the working class.

Lol at this delusional, condescending caricature of Trump supporters by an author desperately trying to rationalize the increasingly discredited and fast crumbling relevance of the secular globalist intelligentsia.
.
You realize Trump polls better with minorities than Romney, right?

[Byron]

I feel like I should provide a non-dickhead translation here;

'Lol at this condescending picture of Trump supporters from an author struggling with the idea that society is changing.'

[GS]

Lol at this delusional, condescending caricature of Trump supporters by an author desperately trying to rationalize the increasingly discredited and fast crumbling relevance of the secular globalist intelligentsia.
.
You realize Trump polls better with minorities than Romney, right?

Using longer words doesn't make you appear smarter.

[Bartholomert]

Using longer words doesn't make you appear smarter.

That feel when the peasants think your casual speech is threateningly verbose.

[Boydy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language#Remedy_of_Six_Ru les

[GS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcALWfB1rxg

[Shindig]

Lol at this delusional, condescending caricature of Trump supporters by an author desperately trying to rationalize the increasingly discredited and fast crumbling relevance of the secular globalist intelligentsia.

"Now watch this free throw drive!"

[Spoonsky]

Bernie posted on Facebook that he's going to debate Trump in California.

:|

Part of me thinks it's a terrible idea, part of me thinks it will be the pinnacle of American politics for at least 20 years.

[Bartholomert]

Bernie posted on Facebook that he's going to debate Trump in California.

:|

Part of me thinks it's a terrible idea, part of me thinks it will be the pinnacle of American politics for at least 20 years.

The ratings for that spectacle :drool:

Although honestly I'm more excited for Trump to go in dry against Crooked Hillary.

[Pepe]

Looks like Trump chickened out.

[GS]

Why would Sanders do that? You can't like the nominee if you are not, in fact, going to be the nominee and have no chance of being so. It's a bit pathetic.

[Davgooner]

TYT have put up a million dollars for charity to do the debate. :drool:

Everyone needs to go and read Trump's speech on energy policy.

[Bernanke]

Bernie is starting to look really fucking salty about losing the nomination.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-lawyers-threaten-to-disrupt-dnc-694626371717

Starts at 5.30.


Rachel Maddow just reported that the Sanders campaign has demanded that Governor Malloy of Connecticut and Barney Frank be removed from their positions as chairs of the Platform and Rules committees at the convention because they won’t be fair enough to Sanders. If the DNC does not give in to this demand, the Sanders campaign has announced that it will use all procedural means to grind the Convention to a halt.

[Lewis]

The left usually lose with such grace as well. Especially when they don't particularly like their [nominal] party to begin with.

[GS]

It comes back to the same point that they simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand why people vote against what they perceive as their own self-interest.

[elth]

Sanders is really losing a lot of the goodwill that he'd built up by being such a fuckhead as soon as it's clear he's going to lose.

[GS]

He is. I daresay it's quite an immature way to behave. It's also 'stringing people along' and making it more likely that Trump will win by polarising the Democrats further for absolutely no advantage whatsoever.

[phonics]

I think it's a smart thing. Means he's not attacking Hilary in the lead up to a general and looking to get genuinely left leaning people into positions of power inside the DNC. Thought the Chris Hayes segment on this was very good.

P.S. Chris Hayes, literally the only thing on 24 hour news worth watching these days.

[ItalAussie]

It's still a long time to the general. I wish he'd bow out now, and I don't think he's helping anyone by continuing on.

But there's a lot of news cycles between now and the election, and Trump is going to do what he can to be the loudest in all of them. When it comes down to Hilary v Trump, the narrative will swing to the point that Sanders will likely be forgotten entirely.

[elth]

I don't mind him staying in, he's as entitled to run as anyone, but he's being a brat about it. It doesn't matter who's in what positions at the convention mate, Hillary handed your ass to you. It's over.

[Davgooner]

Is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz upset?

I think he cares more about the issues he's campaigned on than the actual presidency, and just wants to keep banging the drum and sustaining the movement he's built. See also the offer to debate Trump. Given the shite thrown at him recently, the smug attitude of the party and the corporate media, not to mention the outright corruption, he might as well go fucking big.

[GS]

There comes a point where it's counterproductive. Hillary's won the nomination. If you believe Trump is going to be a disaster, surely you recognise the reality of the situation and start throwing your weight behind the Democratic nominee.

All he's doing by going in is driving wedges into the Democratic base and, potentially, alienating independent voters who wonder why the fuck he's bothering and whether it's worth trusting the Democrats when this is the sort of shite they're pulling. It's not just the presidency - it's the associated Congress races and a united party is far better than this.

[Lewis]

He's doing it to keep Dave going.

[phonics]

There comes a point where it's counterproductive. Hillary's won the nomination. If you believe Trump is going to be a disaster, surely you recognise the reality of the situation and start throwing your weight behind the Democratic nominee.

All he's doing by going in is driving wedges into the Democratic base and, potentially, alienating independent voters who wonder why the fuck he's bothering and whether it's worth trusting the Democrats when this is the sort of shite they're pulling. It's not just the presidency - it's the associated Congress races and a united party is far better than this.

No he's not. All his fights have been ignoring Hilary completely. Saying Barney Frank made a bad bill and that the DNC chair isn't up to the job is exactly what a losing candidate should be doing. Shaping the politics of the party for years to come due to him winning multiple states on said platform. The only people who are following the DNC race at this point are Politics Nerds like ourselves who couldn't matter less. It's not going to effect the General whatsoever. Outside of the selected candidate not following important positions to those that did vote for Bernie, obvs.

[GS]

No he's not. All his fights have been ignoring Hilary completely. Saying Barney Frank made a bad bill and that the DNC chair isn't up to the job is exactly what a losing candidate should be doing. Shaping the politics of the party for years to come due to him winning multiple states on said platform. The only people who are following the DNC race at this point are Politics Nerds like ourselves who couldn't matter less. It's not going to effect the General whatsoever. Outside of the selected candidate not following important positions to those that did vote for Bernie, obvs.

He's not shaping the politics of the party. He lost and the blunt truth is he never looked like he was going to win. Even where one excluded the super delegates, he's never been ahead nor looked like being ahead. To suggest that he's gaining anything from this apart from looking bitter and refusing to accept that the ride is over is a significant misreading of the situation. There's also no guarantee whatsoever that the youth he has supposedly energised are going to remain engaged for any length of time. Such idealism soon meets its end when confronted with reality and pragmatism.

What a losing candidate should be doing is gracefully bowing out having, you know, lost. Sticking the boot into your own party (well, they weren't his party until a year or two ago) and then presumably needing to turn around in four or five months and campaign for everybody else to trust that party? That's going to be a difficult thing to do, because he's going to look like someone who can't make his mind up.

[Davgooner]

You're such a nark.

[GS]

It must be difficult to see another supposed socialist be roundly rejected by the electorate. It might help if they actually did some self-reflection instead of SEETHING over it and trying to pretend they're CHANGING THE PARTY.

Nobody cares. If they did, they wouldn't keep losing heavily.

[Bartholomert]

Surely everyone recognizes that Bernie is still in it because Hillary is liable to get indicted...then he will be poised to pick up the pieces

[Spoonsky]

He's not shaping the politics of the party. He lost and the blunt truth is he never looked like he was going to win. Even where one excluded the super delegates, he's never been ahead nor looked like being ahead. To suggest that he's gaining anything from this apart from looking bitter and refusing to accept that the ride is over is a significant misreading of the situation. There's also no guarantee whatsoever that the youth he has supposedly energised are going to remain engaged for any length of time. Such idealism soon meets its end when confronted with reality and pragmatism.

What a losing candidate should be doing is gracefully bowing out having, you know, lost. Sticking the boot into your own party (well, they weren't his party until a year or two ago) and then presumably needing to turn around in four or five months and campaign for everybody else to trust that party? That's going to be a difficult thing to do, because he's going to look like someone who can't make his mind up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-scores-platform-concessions-from-democratic-national-committee/2016/05/23/e9ee8330-20fc-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

From a totally pragmatic standpoint, you're just wrong. He is literally helping to shape to party platform. If he dropped out he wouldn't be doing that.

[phonics]

He's not shaping the politics of the party. He lost and the blunt truth is he never looked like he was going to win. Even where one excluded the super delegates, he's never been ahead nor looked like being ahead. To suggest that he's gaining anything from this apart from looking bitter and refusing to accept that the ride is over is a significant misreading of the situation. There's also no guarantee whatsoever that the youth he has supposedly energised are going to remain engaged for any length of time. Such idealism soon meets its end when confronted with reality and pragmatism.

What a losing candidate should be doing is gracefully bowing out having, you know, lost. Sticking the boot into your own party (well, they weren't his party until a year or two ago) and then presumably needing to turn around in four or five months and campaign for everybody else to trust that party? That's going to be a difficult thing to do, because he's going to look like someone who can't make his mind up.

You're literally just wrong. It's as simple as that.

I pointed out practical things he's doing to shape the party in the future. You just spouted bollocks for twice as long while saying half as much which can basically be summed up as 'BECAUSE NARRATIVE'.

[Henry]

It must be difficult to see another supposed socialist be roundly rejected by the electorate. It might help if they actually did some self-reflection instead of SEETHING over it and trying to pretend they're CHANGING THE PARTY.

Nobody cares. If they did, they wouldn't keep losing heavily.

The results aren't bearing out this "roundly rejected" or "losing heavily" stuff. The seethe is all yours.

[elth]

He is, to be fair, 300 elected delegates or so behind Clinton. It's not a close race.

[Pepe]

Out of 4.051 delegates. That is less than a 10% difference. Total blowout isn't it?

[Pepe]

To suggest that he should shut up because he has been 'roundly rejected' when he has won 46% of the pledged delegates so far is fucking stupid.

'Losing heavily' :harold:

[Bernanke]

-50% of Trump fans think Hillary Clinton had some involvement in the death of Vince Foster, to only 13% who think she didn't and 37% who aren't sure one way or another. This is another example of the cult like aspect of Trump's following. He says something and his voters get on board with it for the most part. We saw a similar dynamic with his claims about Arabs in New Jersey cheering on 9/11.

-Georgia removed the Confederate flag from its state flag in 2001, but Trump fans in the state want it back. 52% want it reincorporated back into the Georgia flag, compared to only 29% who would be opposed to doing such a thing. By contrast voters with an unfavorable view of Trump oppose, 14/76, putting the Confederate flag back into the state flag.

-Trump fans are pretty ambivalent on whether they even think it's a good thing that the North won the Civil War. Only 37% say that they're glad the North won, compared to 31% who wish the South had won, and 32% who aren't sure one way or another.

-Finally we find that Trump fans support his practice of calling Elizabeth Warren 'Pocahontas,' 50-31. Among voters who have a negative opinion of Trump, 86% think it's inappropriate to call Warren by that moniker to only 10% who find it acceptable.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/06/trump-has-solid-lead-over-clinton-in-georgia.html

31% wishing the South had won. :uhoh:

[GS]

He is, to be fair, 300 elected delegates or so behind Clinton. It's not a close race.

This is it. Nor has it ever been close. He has never looked like winning, and has been nothing more than a spoiler. Fair play to him, but the race is over. The Democrats aren't going to lurch to the left, and you're not going to have swarms of people who wouldn't vote Democrat move to the party. Clinton's supporters who suggested after the primaries in 2008 that they'd never vote for Obama then went and did so. In much the same way, most of his supporters will end up voting for the Democratic candidate or not voting at all.

If you lads want to convince yourself that 75 year old Bernie Sanders getting a respectable second in a two and a quarter horse race is evidence of some great imminent change in Democratic politics, then crack on. You'll be in for a disappointment when Clinton and the rest of the Democratic representatives in Congress get on exactly as they would have if Sanders hadn't bothered.

[Pepe]

And who said that exactly? :face:

[Bartholomert]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/06/trump-has-solid-lead-over-clinton-in-georgia.html

31% wishing the South had won. :uhoh:

Welcome to the South.


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

[Jimmy Floyd]

'Dixie Land' is a fucking corker of a song, so I kind of wish the south had won so I could listen to that for Olympic gold medallists in wood cutting and hog baiting.

[phonics]

And who said that exactly? :face:

Its like reading an echo chamber.

[Bartholomert]

'Dixie Land' is a fucking corker of a song, so I kind of wish the south had won so I could listen to that for Olympic gold medallists in wood cutting and hog baiting.

My favorite version:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WocYevOF44U

Goose bumps every time. Makes me want to move to the Deep South, work as a big-shot local lawyer, live in a neo-classical mansion with large Greek columns in the front, marry a blonde sorority girl wife from a tier 2.5 state school, and have the entirety of my social life revolve around football tailgates.

[GS]

Its like reading an echo chamber.

Glass houses.

You might need to look up what it means, mind.

[Bartholomert]

New high energy poll has Trump within 4 against Hillary in deep blue New Jersey (Romney lost by 18):

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/poll-hillary-clinton-trump-new-jersey-223724

[Davgooner]

Hilary's reached the magic figure then, but Bernie's going to run for the duration just for the lols. There's a Reuters poll out today that has her ahead of Trump by 10.

The other interesting thing the past few days has been how many high profile Republicans have turned on Trump after his comment about that judge. He's since gone on to suggest Muslim and female judges would probably discriminate against him as well. :face:

[Bernanke]

Slate had a decent piece on the latter:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/07/why_are_republicans_distancing_themselves_from_tru mp_s_gonazalo_curiel_attack.html

[Bartholomert]

Hilary's reached the magic figure then, but Bernie's going to run for the duration just for the lols. There's a Reuters poll out today that has her ahead of Trump by 10.

The other interesting thing the past few days has been how many high profile Republicans have turned on Trump after his comment about that judge. He's since gone on to suggest Muslim and female judges would probably discriminate against him as well. :face:

I mean he's right. The judge has ties to radical pro-immigrant groups who have spoken exhaustively against Trump, he's only human, he will almost undoubtedly by biased against him. Despite the faux outrage coming from the center-left mainstream media (which some RINOs still mistakenly believe to be relevant), nobody cares or buys that what he's said is at all contentious.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-mexican-judge-curiel-20160607-story.html

[phonics]

I mean he's right. The judge has ties to radical pro-immigrant groups who have spoken exhaustively against Trump, he's only human, he will almost undoubtedly by biased against him. Despite the faux outrage coming from the center-left mainstream media (which some RINOs still mistakenly believe to be relevant), nobody cares or buys that what he's said is at all contentious.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-mexican-judge-curiel-20160607-story.html

I was intrigued what part of this article would uphold merts arguments about this radical pro-immigrant group who has spoken exhaustively against Trump.

I found this


Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump's aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers' association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization.

You've gone from being an asshole to an infowars level conspiratard. Well done.