US Presidential Race

NationalReview and Breitbart aren't right-wing, they're far right.

Breitbart is my favourite journal to read

Milo Yiannopoulos

Sepi, seriously, it's sad. You are not an imbecile, why do you immerse in imbecile politics?

Sepi who do you want to be the US president in 2016 among the candidates?

Natalie Portman wrote:Breitbart is my favourite journal to read

Milo Yiannopoulos

Sepi would you vote for Ted Cruz if he somehow managed to get past the primary election ? he's the favorite boy of Breitbart at the moment and the most extreme anti-immigrant candidate.

I'm not arsed about US elections as neither I have the power to vote, nor care about that country as it's clearly in a Cultural decline with family traditions being vanished and feminism and left-wing free speech censorship gaining power.

I perhaps want Trump to win for the comedy value again.

As long as Putin and other Eastern European right-wing leaders (Orban, Duda, etc) stand strong, at least preserving SOME of Europs (i've lost faith in Western Europe/Scandinavia) that's my political satisfaction guaranteed. I care little about elsewhere.

@Pedram, Immigration in US is very different compared to (Illegal) immigration in Europe. The point Futbol was making...US/Canada is a lot easier for an immigrant to rise to the top and integrate, in Europe it's as hard of a job as taking Sporting Gijon to CL.

Since Europe is my favourite part in the world and I want to live there for majority of my life, only European politics concern me greatly at the moment. Last night was the first time I devoted any time to actually watch anything related to US elections (Other than Trump tweets of course). Not even gonna participate in Canadian elections which is next week, as I don't like any of the 3 candidates.

Breitbart is dead isn't he. Who's even running this pathetic rag nowadays? Is it the guy that dressed up as a pimp at ACORN to fabricate some faux-news report?

I have family members who went to Austria as ACTUAL political refugees over 30 years ago. 30 years later, one of the kids is among Austria's top film makers winning awards, other is a doctor..Both still live in Vienna...Both having been lived and raised n Austria from age of 2.

Yet to this day, they say they will never feel Austrian because they were never treated as such by native Austrians despite coming from secular families with no religious affinities, German becoming their first language, and being there since almost the very beginning.

That's the truth and crux of reality about immigration/refugeeship in Europe. It's a completely different gravy compared to North America. I'd hate to have that feeling. And that's a nice and the best case scenario of it.....

I fully remember it was back in summer 1997 when I went to Vienna to visit them with my mom. When my relative (At the time a 16 year old blonde girl actually looks very Austrian) took me to the park (I was 7, had darkish hard, light eyes, but skin not as white as Austrians) to play in the playground, the Austrian mother immediately yelled at her kids to leave the play ground and walk elsewhere with her because I had just entered the area. I didn't get it at the time...but my relative told my mom later, as she understands German.
Not only refugeeship of Syrians in this case (Most fraudulent in hunt of money, but even ACTUAL refugees) is to damage and anger of locals , but even the kids (little % I know, as most are young men in their prime fighting years) will suffer from this obvious discrimination. They're better off being refugeeed in a different area. Unless they have a big thick skin.

Now think of some religious hard-cores, in their 20s just arriving, no language knowledges, hungry for sex and money and willing to do anything to achieve those means. It doesn't bode well, especially when combined with Europeans naturally anti-immigrant feelings (At least in the south, less so in Swedenstan or others). Hell will break loose, sooner rathe than later. I just hope nothing radical happens in France in June, because I'll be there and I won't want to die in an explosion as I'm watching Iceland play Russia in Lyon.

who's your filmmaker relative, Arash Riahi?

Yep.

I don't think Sanders stands a chance of winning the primaries, but if he did...the outcome of Sanders vs any generic republican (they're really all the same) would be interesting to see. There is a long way to go yet though. I don't count him out. For me a lot could change if Bernie could dominate the minority vote. Given his policies and plans, he should be able to dominate the minority vote, but as of right now his numbers with minorities are very poor. They simply don't know who he is right now. Hillary has the name.

He's a self described Democratic socialist which is immediately a knock against him, but he does have the best pep rally/grass roots excitement generating ability of any candidate I've seen since Obama in 08, and the biggest problem for Democrats is voter turnout so if Bernie could get Democrats to turn out in higher numbers and also get the minority vote...it would be interesting. I looked at the conservative sections of Reddit and there was actually a substantial group there that said that Bernie seemed like an honest politician and they wouldn't mind him (the others hated him). If he could pull in the moderates with his honesty and lack of super PAC support as well...like I said, it could get interesting. It scares me though, as much as I would love Bernie being the democratic nomination, I'm not so sure about his ability to beat any Republican (despite their candidates being absolutely dire).

Dude needs to chill out though. I liked his performance last night regardless, but he needs to chill a bit and take notes from HRC and O'Malley, who both looked much more presidential than he did. I understand he was doing his "revolution"/pep rally spiel, but after the first ten minutes I just wanted him to relax a bit more. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Bernie, though, since that's how he is.

Other interesting notes--to me it seemed as if O'Malley isn't really here to be president anymore (he has no chance...), he's putting himself in an interesting position though and it seems to me that he's angling to be VP of HRC or at least end up with a cabinet spot. Also, Webb and Chafee providing the entertainment that people thought the debate would lack. Hillary had a good performance but nothing special.

If you're a traditional woman (Translation: not feminist) Bernie sanders thinks it's a cool idea to caricature you as being desperate for anal vaginal and oral rape... simultaneously of course.

according to?

According to his own attempt at writing satire of traditional gender roles, which he now says he was dumb for doing

I mean, he actually wrote this. Like really, it's not a vast right wing conspiracy, it's his own words


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRYM32BUkAEvu_O.jpg

Interesting that Hillary's opposition researchers seem to take him seriously by now lol.

RealGunner wrote:Heard Sanders did quite well.


Will USA really vote for a socialist thought when the time comes?

Yes we could. But not sanders. If Sanders had money, a better demographic appeal, and was better at defending his far left positions to make them appeal to the American voter, the socialist tag could be overcome possibly

But as it is now, the only demographic sanders appeals to is 18-35 year old, white college educated liberals. Hillary destroys him in every other demographic (women, African Americans, Latinos, etc). And during the debate, when he had the opertunity to defend his open socialist tag, he basically said " we should be like Denmark", and Hillary easily dismissed him. Her position was " I'm not a socialist but I believe that at times capitalism needs to be saved from its self". In reality, that's exactly what socialism is really, but comes across much better to an American audience. Saying we're going to turn the USA is a ridiculous proposition to make. I get that's not what he is really saying but that's what the majority of people who watched the debates will infer from it.


I'm still voting for Sanders in the primary but he can't win not because he has to many socialist values, but because his self presentation, and the way he gets across his message, just won't cut it, or be enough to overcome someone like Hillary

In the end though, it's probably for the best. Sanders could NOT beat a republican in a general election. They would make him and his socialist tag public enemy number 1. He would actually have a better shot at beating Hillary because she can't attack him or fear monger against his positions like a republican could, because she doesn't even really disagree with him on a majority of issues

VendettaRed07 wrote:But as it is now, the only demographic sanders appeals to is 18-35 year old, white college educated liberals. Hillary destroys him in every other demographic (women, African Americans, Latinos, etc).

Not sure I agree with this. I don't see any reason why Sanders would be assumed to lose among hispanics or black people. Also what makes you think Hillary automatically wins older demos? I dont think Sanders will win but to easily dismiss his popularity among certain groups seems like...well the kind of mistake Hillary made in the last election

VR wrote:In the end though, it's probably for the best. Sanders could NOT beat a republican in a general election. They would make him and his socialist tag public enemy number 1. He would actually have a better shot at beating Hillary

Disagree with this too. The people for whom the socialist tag is an instant dealbreaker would never entertain the idea of voting D in the first place. Sanders has positions both to the left (Hardcore Liberals - free public college, criminal justice, bank regulation) and the right (Libertarians - foreign policy, guns, war on drugs, corporate welfare) of Hillary that could be attractive to groups that would never vote for her

How is Deez Nuts doing?

I want to ask you guys a question, since I'm just a casual observer of this issue. Is this Trump guy a real candidate? I mean, all along I have seen Senators or Governors running for presidential nominations. Also, his absurdity is really, I don't know, absurd??? Even Sarah Polin (2012) don't come close. But off-course, I'm just a casual observer and might have missed many things of the previous election too.

So, to repeat my question, is this Trump guy a real candidate? Or he is just having a bit of fun before the serious business starts? After all, the election is 14 months away and other candidates might just be preparing their 'pitch'.

He is real, though he's not expected to make it in the end despite his currently good poll numbers. The really insane ones tend to have good poll numbers in the beginning of the campaign because they generate more awareness due to the sharability of their insane soundbites.
Those same statements will later bite them in the ass when talk moves on to the general election.

Palin (in 2008, btw) was still more insane than Trump ever was, time just mellows out those impressions. Bachmann in 2012, too, was more insane than Trump.


But yeah, Trump is real. As real as Huckabee, Santorum, Bachmann, or Palin.

Trump for Presi would be top class banter.

Even better than Having Hillary occupying the same office space where old man Bill got some action from Lady Lewisnky.

VivaStPauli wrote:He is real, though he's not expected to make it in the end despite his currently good poll numbers. The really insane ones tend to have good poll numbers in the beginning of the campaign because they generate more awareness due to the sharability of their insane soundbites.
Those same statements will later bite them in the ass when talk moves on to the general election.

Palin (in 2008, btw) was still more insane than Trump ever was, time just mellows out those impressions. Bachmann in 2012, too, was more insane than Trump.


But yeah, Trump is real. As real as Huckabee, Santorum, Bachmann, or Palin.

Exactly. So the question of 'real candidates' in the early Republican field is a bit misleading lol.

One musn't forget it's still early. The actual primaries are next year, I think Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are in January while the bulk of the states vote on 'Super Tuesday' lol, beginning of March, I think.

Trump gets a lot of attention now because the media love him. At this early point the primary campaigns are more or less circus fodder for the 24h news channels.
People, apart from activists, wonks, or connoisseurs, don't pay close attention yet.
So when they get polled, they often go after name recognition, and Trump obviously has a lot of name recognition.

As viva said, at this time around in the last primaries, candidates like Michelle crazy-eyes Bachmann and owner of a pizza chain Herman Cain were considered 'frontrunners' for a news cycle or two. Of course they never came anywhere close. (Palin was never a candidate in the primaries, though she peddled the notion to get make some money)

Just as Trump will never get anywhere close.
Trump is a slightly more interesting case imo though, for reasons that would require a longer post, and he might wreak more havoc than the above mentioned, and than the Republican establishment might like.

But when push comes to shove, the Republican voters usually go with the establishment, 'electable' candidate.

Also of course because winning the primaries, not just the 'First in the Union' Iowa one (that is numerically insignificant and only relevant for momentum or symbolism), requires more than early name recognition, it requires a so called 'ground game' all over the states, staffers and offices to actually get your voters to the voting boothes on the required day.

I would bet that Trump and his campaign staff don't know shit about building a ground game, while someone like Jeb Bush would have all the expertise, war chest, and veteran campaigners, and most importantly databases lol, of the party at his disposal.

That being said, Bush seems to me a pretty underwhelming candidate himself, but so far I can't see anyone else actually winning this.

I checked and this time even the first primaries and caucuses don't start before February.
So who's leading the polls now means nothing.