US Presidential Race

Trump isn't doing himself any favors of that account by claiming that Muslim and Mexican judges can't do their job when it comes to him and refusing to disavow the KKK leader...

DuringTheWar wrote:"It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703724104575379200412040286

There it is folks, the secret (or at least one of them)of Trump's success. He's capitalised on resentment among republicans fermented by attacks on white Americans by a disgustingly unprincipled socially-leftist political-media class, originally to get their boy BHO into office, but which has now metastasised into widespread antagonism directed at white America.

Border control? Racist! Voter id? Racist! Welfare cuts? Racist! Tough on crime? Racist! Nuclear family? Racist! (And sexist! and homphobic!!) Islamic extremism? Racist! Shakespeare? Old dead racist! Founding fathers? Old dead racists! Etc...

Is this what set Thomas Mair off?

There is so much wrong there, I won't bother responding tbh

Betty La Fea wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:"It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703724104575379200412040286

There it is folks, the secret (or at least one of them)of Trump's success. He's capitalised on resentment among republicans fermented by attacks on white Americans by a disgustingly unprincipled socially-leftist political-media class, originally to get their boy BHO into office, but which has now metastasised into widespread antagonism directed at white America.

Border control? Racist! Voter id? Racist! Welfare cuts? Racist! Tough on crime? Racist! Nuclear family? Racist! (And sexist! and homphobic!!) Islamic extremism? Racist! Shakespeare? Old dead racist! Founding fathers? Old dead racists! Etc...

Is this what set Thomas Mair off?

Hmm, do you know what I think may have had some role, possibly, in setting him off.... Today thirteen - by the look of them Pakistani - men from the same town as Thomas Mair were convicted and sentenced to over 150 years in prison for raping a British schoolgirl.

Just another day in Yorkshire. Yeah literally, it's fu****g normal events.

I'd add, the kind lady who Thomas Mair shot and stabbed was part of an establishment that has presided over these and other events like them. She's on record championing how great immigration had been for her area. It just sickens me to be quite honest, to think of politicians like her turning a blind eye, while spewing such bullshit at the same time.
If you have a history of mental illness as Thomas Mair apparently did, who knows what that would drive you to do.

DuringTheWar wrote:"It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703724104575379200412040286

There it is folks, the secret (or at least one of them)of Trump's success. He's capitalised on resentment among republicans fermented by attacks on white Americans by a disgustingly unprincipled socially-leftist political-media class, originally to get their boy BHO into office, but which has now metastasised into widespread antagonism directed at white America.

Border control? Racist! Voter id? Racist! Welfare cuts? Racist! Tough on crime? Racist! Nuclear family? Racist! (And sexist! and homphobic!!) Islamic extremism? Racist! Shakespeare? Old dead racist! Founding fathers? Old dead racists! Etc...

Yeah sure! That's totally what happened! Trump is the liberals' fault!

Oh dear.

DuringTheWar wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:"It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703724104575379200412040286

There it is folks, the secret (or at least one of them)of Trump's success. He's capitalised on resentment among republicans fermented by attacks on white Americans by a disgustingly unprincipled socially-leftist political-media class, originally to get their boy BHO into office, but which has now metastasised into widespread antagonism directed at white America.

Border control? Racist! Voter id? Racist! Welfare cuts? Racist! Tough on crime? Racist! Nuclear family? Racist! (And sexist! and homphobic!!) Islamic extremism? Racist! Shakespeare? Old dead racist! Founding fathers? Old dead racists! Etc...

Is this what set Thomas Mair off?

Hmm, do you know what I think may have had some role, possibly, in setting him off.... Today thirteen - by the look of them Pakistani - men from the same town as Thomas Mair were convicted and sentenced to over 150 years in prison for raping a British schoolgirl.

Just another day in Yorkshire. Yeah literally, it's fu****g normal events.

I'd add, the kind lady who Thomas Mair shot and stabbed was part of an establishment that has presided over these and other events like them. She's on record championing how great immigration had been for her area. It just sickens me to be quite honest, to think of politicians like her turning a blind eye, while spewing such bullshit at the same time.
If you have a history of mental illness as Thomas Mair apparently did, who knows what that would drive you to do.

Have they been a net positive to her city? The rapes are unfortunate, but surely they have given more than that.

DuringTheWar wrote:

RedOranje wrote:No, they are not categorized as white in most/all cases; including, to my knowledge, this particular one.  They have their own separate section.

Look at the numbers in the table closely. The way they add up to the same total strongly suggests the Hispanic and Latinos are counted there in the race section. My best assumption given how segregated murder is is that most of them are put in with whites and that's why they seems to kill a lot more "whites" than blacks.

RedOranje wrote:I HAVE looked at the table closely... on multiple occasions and for multiple different overall perspectives.  The separate section for "Hispanic
or Latino" under Ethnicity does not line up with the "White" sections in any meaningful way as would be expected if the two were closely correlated over overlapping in either section.

If you really looked at it multiple times from multiple different perspective and didn't see this obvious thing, and denied it when I pointed it out, given how smart you are, you are either lying or deluded.

Let me make this as clear as possible...

The total number of people murdered is 5703. The sum of victims classified by race is 5703, the sum of victims classified by ethnicity is 5703. The sum of perpetrators by race is 5703, the sum of perpetrators by ethnicity is 5703. In each case they are the same goddamn people.

The fact that the number of Hispanic/Latino perpetrators of "white" homicides exceeds the sum total of all perpetrators by race other than white is irrefutable cast iron proof there is a strong overlap between "White" race and "Hispanic/Latino" ethnicity.


This bullshit gives the impression that there are more white murderers than there actually are.
If people ignore ethnicity and don't realise what's going on, it makes it look like Hispanics killing Hispanics is whites killing Hispanics, that Hispanics killining whites is whites killing whites, completely ridiculous.

RedOranje wrote: Whites killed by whites [sic] ~ 82.4%

If you assume that 90% of Hispanics/Latinos are categorised as whites (as this woman says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjCurOJYFAw ) we can approximate by subtracting them from the White total. But then if you look at the sheer number of "unknown" ethnicities which far exceeds unknown race, the whole things is useless, you can't infer anything for sure about whites from their data.

RedOranje wrote: Whites killed by blacks [sic] ~ 14.7%
Blacks killed by whites [sic] ~ 7.6%

By adjusting the figures by assuming 90% of those that we do know are Hispanic/Latino are classed as white and subtracting them from whites then at least 19% of actual whites were killed by blacks and at most 5% of blacks were killed by actual whites.

Looks like Sanders is voting for Hillary too

Bernie Sanders: I'll probably vote for Clinton

The founding fathers were right. Direct democracy was a mistake and nothing but trash.

A representative republic where wealthy aristocrats make all the decisions for us is the only way to go.

Hillary Clinton 2016

Just take a look at this shit

https://storify.com/case_face/a-trump-rally-in-greensboro-anger-in-here-is-palpa

I don't see how you can support Trump and not expect to be regarded as a racist(even if you aren't) or a straight up idiot.

It's painful to see far right politics gain so much steam in 2016 globally. This is chilling.

Blue Barrett wrote:Just take a look at this shit

https://storify.com/case_face/a-trump-rally-in-greensboro-anger-in-here-is-palpa

I don't see how you can support Trump and not expect to be regarded as a racist(even if you aren't) or a straight up idiot.

It's painful to see far right politics gain so much steam in 2016 globally. This is chilling.

why do you think it has gained so much steam.

Unique wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:Just take a look at this shit

https://storify.com/case_face/a-trump-rally-in-greensboro-anger-in-here-is-palpa

I don't see how you can support Trump and not expect to be regarded as a racist(even if you aren't) or a straight up idiot.

It's painful to see far right politics gain so much steam in 2016 globally. This is chilling.

why do you think it has gained so much steam.

Because whether we want to admit it or not, a good chunk of American society are still racist. Of the 60% white people in the country, I'd say a good one-third of them are still racist and most of them had been hiding it for quite a while.

The Republican party have been slowly feeding into the discriminatory, mostly racist rhetoric for years now though they've tried to mask it as "loving the constitution". I've lived in the US for about 11 years in total, as a teenager and now and adult and I've seen this culture play out over all these years and from what I've learnt, it has been going on for even much longer.

They've been gently encouraging that small minority of the population who are racist and those who also have the tendency to be. But they always did it in a politically correct way. Now Trump comes along and says "f**k it! I'll call it as bluntly as I can. No need to be politically correct, this is what we truly believe and want!" and that base who've been fed all these things LOVE Trump for it. FINALLY they can be bold about their beliefs. A guy who could be president is encouraging them to be fearless about their beliefs(and simultaneously fueling their misinformed fears) and they are absolutely BUZZING about it. That's why he became so popular. Well that's one reason.

You also have the American media to blame for it. From day one, Trump lacked any sort of substance and based his whole campaign on bigotry and racism and saying the most outrageous things. The media, instead of pressing him on more important issues chose to run with the headline grabbers and it made Trump even more famous among this base waiting to embrace him across the country.

For example, he'd say "I'm going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it.". Some reporter would ask "but how are you going to make them pay for it" and he'd say "well they owe us x amount of money so yeah they're going to pay for it". Instead of said reporter or the media in general to press him about how that's not how debt(or the world in general works), holding him accountable to his "policies", giving his misinformed fans the educated info they deserve, they'd run with the money grabbing, click bait headline that says "Donald Trump says he wants to build a wall across the Mexican border".

Or he'd say completely vague things like "we need leaders that can get better deals and there's no one that can make better deals than me, trust me, I'm a business man" and instead of asking him HOW exactly he intends to get said deals he's bragging about, they let it slide again. This guy actually uses the fact that he hosted a Miss Universe pageant in another country(couldn't be bothered to check what country it was) as an example of how he's good at international relations and his foreign policy will be top notch.

I can go on and on and on but you see how he's never held accountable by the media on his "policies". Politifact(a Pulitzer winning fact checking website, if I'm not mistaken) have graded over 70% of claims he makes as FALSE but the news media don't care. So many things I can say about this but my post will end up being way too long.

He's also helped by the fact that his major opponent is an absolutely shit candidate. Hillary Clinton might be the worst democratic candidate in the past 30-40 years. She is THE definition of a flawed candidate. She has a terrible record as Secretary of State and her political career right from when she was a First Lady has been riddled with scandals. It has given Trump so much ammunition to work with.

But here's the thing, Hillary may be wrong on a lot of things but she's wrong within the right parameters. She's not a bigot that wants to take the country back into an age of racism. She's not a nationalist or isolationist. "Money in politics" is her biggest problem but electing her would only mean the process of cleaning out corporate donors from politics would take longer. That's a fair enough compromise to make versus the absolute disaster Trump is going to bring.

Not only will this guy wreck the US socially, he'd also wreck the country economically(experts have said his tax plans would add $3trillion to the national debt), get the country involved in infinitely more war crimes than it's already involved in(and boast about it too), destroy relations with other countries, etc etc.

And what's worse? He has a VERY REAL chance of winning the election.

2016. What a year.

More evidence that this idiot, apart from his bigotry and fascist personality, really just wants to drive the US economy into the ground. And people support him. Amazing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-debt_us_57701efbe4b0dbb1bbbae2c9?fis4rmguoh01du0udi

Hillary is far from the worst democratic candidate of the past 30 years. I remember us nominating Kerry in 2004(well...the party, as I was in high school back then), and he made an absolute mess of an election any semi competent politician could have won in 04 against Bush.

Gore also quit on us and let jeb! steal the election in florida for his brother.

She only looks sucky because she is following a GOAT-level president. She will be a great president.

Betty La Fea wrote:Hillary is far from the worst democratic candidate of the past 30 years. I remember us nominating Kerry in 2004(well...the party, as I was in high school back then), and he made an absolute mess of an election any semi competent politician could have won in 04 against Bush.

Gore also quit on us and let jeb! steal the election in florida for his brother.

She only looks sucky because she is following a GOAT-level president. She will be a great president.

I'm not talking about her campaigning skills. The Clinton machine might be the most efficient in that same span of 30-40 years. They know how to run a damn efficient campaign. And she definitely doesn't lack donors. My problem is with her record, her accountability and just overall personality.

Hillary will have to be something else as far as being a terrible candidate to lose to Trump.

Not going to happen, and that's not even me holding my hands over my ears and playing ignorant.

CBarca wrote:Hillary will have to be something else as far as being a terrible candidate to lose to Trump.

Not going to happen, and that's not even me holding my hands over my ears and playing ignorant.

Don't underestimate Trump. And if you notice, with each FBI statement or whatever other body comments on Hillary's email investigation, her poll ratings drop. More than likely, she'll win it. But she'll be a fool to underestimate Trump's campaign. She hasn't won majority of Sanders' supporters yet either(and she NEEDS them in order to win). The annoying thing about that is how arrogant she seems to be about it. She seems to be of the mindset that "whatever, I don't need to say anything to them. They'll vote for me eventually". She doesn't realize that a lot of them are 'Bernie or Bust' or looking towards Jill Stein/writing in Bernie. She has her work cut out for her and she doesn't even acknowledge it.

Keep bringing up race again and again Duringthewar, keep subtly hinting your preference towards "the white mans burden", and keep acting like the Christian religious nutbag you are. You're lucky a lot of these guys have played nice on you. I'll keep it at that.

Bernie was always going to vote for Clinton. He'll endorse her as well I'm sure of it. He is pushing the democratic party to the left as much as he can. Which is seriously not a bad thing. And no, Bernie supporters are gonna vote Hillary. You *bleep* watch, they will when the possibility of trump being elected becomes realistic.

Blue Barrett wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:Hillary is far from the worst democratic candidate of the past 30 years. I remember us nominating Kerry in 2004(well...the party, as I was in high school back then), and he made an absolute mess of an election any semi competent politician could have won in 04 against Bush.

Gore also quit on us and let jeb! steal the election in florida for his brother.

She only looks sucky because she is following a GOAT-level president. She will be a great president.

I'm not talking about her campaigning skills. The Clinton machine might be the most efficient in that same span of 30-40 years. They know how to run a damn efficient campaign. And she definitely doesn't lack donors. My problem is with her record, her accountability and just overall personality.

Her judgement is par the course IMO.

She was dead WRONG to vote for the Iraq intervention. That cost her the election in 08, and is something she will have to carry to the grave no doubt.

After that she has been much better than worse. Supported the immigration bill(which failed thanks to republicans and people like Sanders). Generally spoke out against the rest of the war in the senate.

As secretary of state she was decent enough. The verdict is out on Libya, but supporting the Arab spring in Places like Tunisia was a success. She is wrong on supporting Rebels over Assad Imo, but we didnt intervene directly so its ok right now.

She has been perfect on Gaza/Israel.
Great on healthcare
Great on Social issues.

Pretty solid.

Betty La Fea wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:Hillary is far from the worst democratic candidate of the past 30 years. I remember us nominating Kerry in 2004(well...the party, as I was in high school back then), and he made an absolute mess of an election any semi competent politician could have won in 04 against Bush.

Gore also quit on us and let jeb! steal the election in florida for his brother.

She only looks sucky because she is following a GOAT-level president. She will be a great president.

I'm not talking about her campaigning skills. The Clinton machine might be the most efficient in that same span of 30-40 years. They know how to run a damn efficient campaign. And she definitely doesn't lack donors. My problem is with her record, her accountability and just overall personality.

Her judgement is par the course IMO.

She was dead WRONG to vote for the Iraq intervention. That cost her the election in 08, and is something she will have to carry to the grave no doubt.

After that she has been much better than worse. Supported the immigration bill(which failed thanks to republicans and people like Sanders). Generally spoke out against the rest of the war in the senate.

As secretary of state she was decent enough. The verdict is out on Libya, but supporting the Arab spring in Places like Tunisia was a success. She is wrong on supporting Rebels over Assad Imo, but we didnt intervene directly so its ok right now.

She has been perfect on Gaza/Israel.
Great on healthcare
Great on Social issues.

Pretty solid.

She did call TPP the "gold standard for trade deals" and she has the issue of having taking donations from Arab nations in the past (hence she has never criticized their terrible human rights record). Throw in the Iraq war too as you mentioned. In the end, as I said before, she may be wrong on certain things imo, but she's wrong within the right parameters. Unlike Führer Trump.

Blue Barrett wrote:

CBarca wrote:Hillary will have to be something else as far as being a terrible candidate to lose to Trump.

Not going to happen, and that's not even me holding my hands over my ears and playing ignorant.

Don't underestimate Trump. And if you notice, with each FBI statement or whatever other body comments on Hillary's email investigation, her poll ratings drop. More than likely, she'll win it. But she'll be a fool to underestimate Trump's campaign. She hasn't won majority of Sanders' supporters yet either(and she NEEDS them in order to win). The annoying thing about that is how arrogant she seems to be about it. She seems to be of the mindset that "whatever, I don't need to say anything to them. They'll vote for me eventually". She doesn't realize that a lot of them are 'Bernie or Bust' or looking towards Jill Stein/writing in Bernie. She has her work cut out for her and she doesn't even acknowledge it.

1. It's too early for polls
2. If you really wanted to play the poll game, you're actually just wrong. Trumps numbers are dropping by the day atm with his lack of fundraising and his inability to put together a coherent and organized general election plan. We haven't even gotten to the fun part of it yet. You think the Clinton machine is still figuring out how to approach this general election? Outta here. They've been planning for this since 2008.

Do I think that those numbers will continue to drop for trump? Nay. However, Hillary's sitting pretty well at the moment and there are some interesting rumblings about the Republican convention (that won't come to fruition) but show the fractured nature of Trump's politics with conservatives, which didn't really need more banging on tbh but it's still happening.

Not to mention what looks like an inevitable Hillary/Warren ticket which is a sure way to buy the vote of many left leaning independents and even those who aren't hardcore "Bernie or bust" voters (which, by the way DO far outweigh the Bernie or Bust voters). Hell, even though I was looking towards voting for Hillary anyway, if she can get Warren on the ticket I'm all for it. The VP doesn't do shit but I like having someone of such progressive values up there and hopefully she can use the fact that she's VP to be a louder voice than she is for most people atm, even if she's not doing anything tangibly

tl;dr

Yeah Trump could make a run but it would require a huge Hillary choke. As far as I'm concerned, I don't really see Trump being able to broaden his appeal enough to make a real run. You can't win these days on the white straight male vote, and that's pretty much all he has.

The only reason he stands any chance is because Hillary is such an unlikable pos

CBarca wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:

CBarca wrote:Hillary will have to be something else as far as being a terrible candidate to lose to Trump.

Not going to happen, and that's not even me holding my hands over my ears and playing ignorant.

Don't underestimate Trump. And if you notice, with each FBI statement or whatever other body comments on Hillary's email investigation, her poll ratings drop. More than likely, she'll win it. But she'll be a fool to underestimate Trump's campaign. She hasn't won majority of Sanders' supporters yet either(and she NEEDS them in order to win). The annoying thing about that is how arrogant she seems to be about it. She seems to be of the mindset that "whatever, I don't need to say anything to them. They'll vote for me eventually". She doesn't realize that a lot of them are 'Bernie or Bust' or looking towards Jill Stein/writing in Bernie. She has her work cut out for her and she doesn't even acknowledge it.

1. It's too early for polls
2. If you really wanted to play the poll game, you're actually just wrong. Trumps numbers are dropping by the day atm with his lack of fundraising and his inability to put together a coherent and organized general election plan. We haven't even gotten to the fun part of it yet. You think the Clinton machine is still figuring out how to approach this general election? Outta here. They've been planning for this since 2008.

Do I think that those numbers will continue to drop for trump? Nay. However, Hillary's sitting pretty well at the moment and there are some interesting rumblings about the Republican convention (that won't come to fruition) but show the fractured nature of Trump's politics with conservatives, which didn't really need more banging on tbh but it's still happening.

Not to mention what looks like an inevitable Hillary/Warren ticket which is a sure way to buy the vote of many left leaning independents and even those who aren't hardcore "Bernie or bust" voters (which, by the way DO far outweigh the Bernie or Bust voters). Hell, even though I was looking towards voting for Hillary anyway, if she can get Warren on the ticket I'm all for it. The VP doesn't do shit but I like having someone of such progressive values up there and hopefully she can use the fact that she's VP to be a louder voice than she is for most people atm, even if she's not doing anything tangibly

I agree with you for the most part but there's no way Hillary's corporate donors will let her put Warren on the ticket She's one of their biggest enemies and has made her career pretty much out of opposing them. It just won't happen. Besides, if she becomes VP, that leaves a Senate seat in Mass. open and their Republican governor is definitely going to pick a Republican to fill the seat. For someone who's a loud voice for Dems in the Senate, it would hurt to take that away, especially since it'll still be a majority GOP for a while even if Hillary wins.

But I agree with you on everything else. I think she has also pretty much been exonerated on the Benghazi thing as of today, seeing as Republicans spent 2 years and $7m on the EIGHTH investigation and were still unable to find anything that implicated Hillary.

If the FBI concludes their investigation and clears her, then that'll really leave them short of many points to attack her with.

Warren is going to be Veep. And Joe Kennedy will replace her in her senate seat

and the political dynasty will continue with President Kennedy in 2024.

VendettaRed07 wrote:Warren is going to be Veep. And Joe Kennedy will replace her in her senate seat

and the political dynasty will continue with President Kennedy in 2024.

No, Joe Kennedy won't Not when Charlie Baker will select a Republican to replace her. And even if that wasn't the case, I'm sorry, but there's no way Hillary goes against her donors and selects Warren for veep.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489