US Presidential Race

DuringTheWar wrote:More trump rally violence. This time time a black supporter went mad at race baiting protesters wearing kkk related attire.

No doubt it's trumps fault for this black man losing his temper, right footyfan?

Are you really denying how Trump encourages violence in his rallies?

He constantly says how he'll take care of whatever happens in court and fees. He says how he'd knock these people out. Punch them or take them out. Makes a show out of throwing people out from his speeches.

As soon as this happens he should condemn the actions. Simply not condemning these actions is bad and makes a politician seem pleased by them. On top of that, he encourages them. Disgraceful case of populism and using people's hate.

https://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedNews/videos/1108709599150057/?fref=nf
I laughed, then maybe shed a single tear.

rincon wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:More trump rally violence. This time time a black supporter went mad at race baiting protesters wearing kkk related attire.

No doubt it's trumps fault for this black man losing his temper, right footyfan?

Are you really denying how Trump encourages violence in his rallies?

He constantly says how he'll take care of whatever happens in court and fees. He says how he'd knock these people out. Punch them or take them out. Makes a show out of throwing people out from his speeches.

As soon as this happens he should condemn the actions. Simply not condemning these actions is bad and makes a politician seem pleased by them. On top of that, he encourages them. Disgraceful case of populism and using people's hate.

No I'm not denying that.

My sources - including the highly esteemed Ann Coulter - have informed me that Trump is in actual fact the resurrected Augusto Pinochet wearing an elaborate disguise à la Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 2 . RightWingDeathSquads and ominous puma helicopters are coming to a state near you folks.

Or perhaps Trump uttering words about how he'd like to punch a seemingly endless stream of rude interrupters at his rallies is actually being blown out of all proportion by liberal hacks. I'm going with the latter.

DuringTheWar wrote:

rincon wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:More trump rally violence. This time time a black supporter went mad at race baiting protesters wearing kkk related attire.

No doubt it's trumps fault for this black man losing his temper, right footyfan?

Are you really denying how Trump encourages violence in his rallies?

He constantly says how he'll take care of whatever happens in court and fees. He says how he'd knock these people out. Punch them or take them out. Makes a show out of throwing people out from his speeches.

As soon as this happens he should condemn the actions. Simply not condemning these actions is bad and makes a politician seem pleased by them. On top of that, he encourages them. Disgraceful case of populism and using people's hate.

No I'm not denying that.

My sources - including the highly esteemed Ann Coulter - have informed me that Trump is in actual fact the resurrected Augusto Pinochet wearing an elaborate disguise à la Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 2 . RightWingDeathSquads and ominous puma helicopters are coming to a state near you folks.

Or perhaps Trump uttering words about how he'd like to punch a seemingly endless stream of rude interrupters at his rallies is actually being blown out of all proportion by liberal hacks. I'm going with the latter.

So you say you aren't denying it ...then proceed to dismiss it, absolve Trump of responsibility for the violence at these rallies.  Then blame the issue on liberal hacks for overreacting. lol.

DuringTheWar wrote:

rincon wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:More trump rally violence. This time time a black supporter went mad at race baiting protesters wearing kkk related attire.

No doubt it's trumps fault for this black man losing his temper, right footyfan?

Are you really denying how Trump encourages violence in his rallies?

He constantly says how he'll take care of whatever happens in court and fees. He says how he'd knock these people out. Punch them or take them out. Makes a show out of throwing people out from his speeches.

As soon as this happens he should condemn the actions. Simply not condemning these actions is bad and makes a politician seem pleased by them. On top of that, he encourages them. Disgraceful case of populism and using people's hate.

No I'm not denying that.

My sources - including the highly esteemed Ann Coulter - have informed me that Trump is in actual fact the resurrected Augusto Pinochet wearing an elaborate disguise à la Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 2 . RightWingDeathSquads and ominous puma helicopters are coming to a state near you folks.

Or perhaps Trump uttering words about how he'd like to punch a seemingly endless stream of rude interrupters at his rallies is actually being blown out of all proportion by liberal hacks. I'm going with the latter.

Ffs I'm not even particularly liberal, nor do I like Hillary.

I just expect a level of class from politicians. If someone is striving to lead a country then they must rise above petty disputes and interruptions at the bare minimum. It doesn't matter if its conservative or liberal. Anyone who might be in such a leadership position has to stop acting like a 5 year old and get some perspective on people who might disagree with him. Specially when his ideas are so inflammatory.

He'd be the face of a country. He has to set an example of understanding if he going to rule over such a heterogeneous population. How will he react in a real crisis? Play macho and think second? This is the bottom of the bottom, the easiest situations to handle. And he fails by encouraging violence instead of condemning it.

No serious diplomat from either end of the spectrum would respect a man like him. He would basically ruin any esteem the US might have been building lately when it comes to international relations. That's beside any divisive effects his behavior has on the people in the country itself.

VivaStPauli wrote:https://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedNews/videos/1108709599150057/?fref=nf
I laughed, then maybe shed a single tear.

I shed a tear on your behalf for coming across Buzzfeed.

VendettaRed07 wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:

rincon wrote:


Are you really denying how Trump encourages violence in his rallies?

He constantly says how he'll take care of whatever happens in court and fees. He says how he'd knock these people out. Punch them or take them out. Makes a show out of throwing people out from his speeches.

As soon as this happens he should condemn the actions. Simply not condemning these actions is bad and makes a politician seem pleased by them. On top of that, he encourages them. Disgraceful case of populism and using people's hate.

No I'm not denying that.

My sources - including the highly esteemed Ann Coulter - have informed me that Trump is in actual fact the resurrected Augusto Pinochet wearing an elaborate disguise à la Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 2 . RightWingDeathSquads and ominous puma helicopters are coming to a state near you folks.

Or perhaps Trump uttering words about how he'd like to punch a seemingly endless stream of rude interrupters at his rallies is actually being blown out of all proportion by liberal hacks. I'm going with the latter.

So you say you aren't denying it ...then proceed to dismiss it, absolve Trump of responsibility for the violence at these rallies.  Then blame the issue on liberal hacks for overreacting. lol.

If a kid eggs on two other kids to fight, the school teacher might disapprove but ultimately the kids who fought will be the ones punished.

That is more analogous to this situation imo than the hitler comparisons previously in this thread. So yes, to a large extent I don't think Trump is the one responsible, and liberals are overeacting.

You are absolving people of moral agency by saying they were taunted into what they did by someone else.

Look what has happened in Brussels. Get Trump in now, let him be sworn in right this minute. He'll solve this.

El Messico wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:https://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedNews/videos/1108709599150057/?fref=nf
I laughed, then maybe shed a single tear.

I shed a tear on your behalf for coming across Buzzfeed.

I did so passively, it's still a fun collage, no matter the source. Of course it's cut with bias, but still funny/sad.

The progressive website Vox has a nice little calculator which lets you see your tax changes under the presidential candidates:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

I just did mine for fun.

Here is what I got:


About what I would expect. Big cuts from republicans, massive increase from Sanders, maintain the course Hillary. I don't see how Sanders, if he would have made it to the GE, would be able to explain this to middle America. That its a payroll tax they won't see(and which their employers won't even pass on to them?).

Can the federal government spend my money better than I can? Should they even be allowed to? These are questions which come into my head even as a progressive.

Absolute monster wins for Sanders in Alaska and Washington today.

Will be interesting seeing how Hawaii goes. I don't think I know another Asian, outside of my sister and her clique, who supports him.

Bernie wins in Hawaii.

Got a feeling there will be a lot of people who won't want to vote for any candidate in the presidential election. Feels like it would be better if the presidential election would be between these four candidates instead of just two of them. That way a lot more people would have a candidate to vote for that they actually want to vote for.

Trump has as high as a 74% unfavorable amongst women, and similar numbers for blacks, latinos and asians. He only has a favorable numbers for lowly educated white males and NASCAR fans (interesting sub category).

How does he have a chance for the general election? I get that Hillary has her own unfavorability numbers, but I suspect people dislike Trump far more than Hillary, and in any case 74% of the biggest voting group (women at 51% or so) is not against Hillary. Where is his electability?

He's popular amongst the angry and "disenfranchised" who are also into politics enough that they actually voted in the primaries.

It's always important to remember that the electorate of the primaries is much different than that of the general election. While that could go against you in BC, I can only see it helping your point. I would imagine his unfavorability would stay high and his voters lost among a sea of rather apathetic middle class Republicans who don't particularly like the idea of an idiot in charge of the nation.

I was wrong about him the first time though, so who knows? To answer your question about his electability in a general election: I don't know, and I don't particularly see it. I've always maintained the idea that Hillary will destroy them, and so I've been congratulating Hillary on being the first female POTUS.

Betty La Fea wrote:Absolute monster wins for Sanders in Alaska and Washington today.

Will be interesting seeing how Hawaii goes. I don't think I know another Asian, outside of my sister and her clique, who supports him.

Monster wins, maybe, but I still don't see any path for him.* He's done well in caucuses but he's about to run out of them. Unless his campaign is able to drastically overcome the issues he's had in non caucus states (at least relatively, compared to Hillary) then Hillary will only continue to pull away from here on out.

*Not insinuating that you were proposing there is a path to the dem nomination for Bernie.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Trump has as high as a 74% unfavorable amongst women, and similar numbers for blacks, latinos and asians. He only has a favorable numbers for lowly educated white males and NASCAR fans (interesting sub category).

How does he have a chance for the general election? I get that Hillary has her own unfavorability numbers, but I suspect people dislike Trump far more than Hillary, and in any case 74% of the biggest voting group (women at 51% or so) is not against Hillary. Where is his electability?

I think pretty much everyone are (silently) thinking along your argument, that Trump has no chance of winning against either of the democrat candidates. There are too many people who simply won't even consider voting for him. That's why I said above that there could be a lot of people in the election who vote empty or don't vote at all. Trump and Cruz are very different to each other. Clinton and Sanders are very different to each other. Those who are voting the two losing candidates now, won't feel keen on voting either of the two winning candidates later this year.


Btw, the Trump phenomenon is the same that's happened in Europe already. Anti-immigration, nationalistic parties gaining a lot of popularity in the last 5-10 years or so. In Britain it's the UKIP, Finland's version of the UKIP came second in the previous parliamentary election and similar parties have done well all over Europe in this decade. Trump's success is based solely on this same factor. There has developed a sizeable portion of people in Western countries who see immigration as the number one threat and source of discontent. These people will vote anyone who is anti-immigration, pretty much regardless of what the candidate's other policies are. In the U.S. this hasn't happened yet, because there are just the two parties and both have to try and be pretty mainstream, neither can take anti-immigration as their driving party policy. But now there's emerged a presidential candidate who is anti-immigration and this said, anti-immigration portion of people have finally a clear choice they want to vote for.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Where is his electability?

It's not there.
GOP have no chance at presidential general election until they find a candidate more accomodating, in both demeanor and policy, to these groups.
With Trump, they're doubling down on alienating them.

CBarca wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:Absolute monster wins for Sanders in Alaska and Washington today.

Will be interesting seeing how Hawaii goes. I don't think I know another Asian, outside of my sister and her clique, who supports him.

Monster wins, maybe, but I still don't see any path for him.* He's done well in caucuses but he's about to run out of them. Unless his campaign is able to drastically overcome the issues he's had in non caucus states (at least relatively, compared to Hillary) then Hillary will only continue to pull away from here on out.

*Not insinuating that you were proposing there is a path to the dem nomination for Bernie.

He is unelectable IMO. Trump on the left.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Where is his electability?

It's not there.
GOP have no chance at presidential general election until they find a candidate more accomodating, in both demeanor and policy, to these groups.
With Trump, they're doubling down on alienating them.

Is that really true? For example According to data and polls I've seen blacks for example have gone from a democrat vote bank in previous elections to almost a democrat votebank in this one. I mean black republicans are still seen as traitor uncle toms that need to get "woke", but polls I've seen suggest Trump isnt exactly losing black voters for the Republican Party, looks more like he gaining some.

Art I think you have a point on the turnout thing. The only way for Trump to win is if his supporters all come out in force whereas the would be hillary ones stay home because they can't stand her... But I think people will come out to vote simply against Trump rather than for Hillary.

So this was the "assault" RedOranje complained about

Interesting, seems pretty innocuous to me. (See if you can even tell what happened)

Meanwhile here is what footyfan01 called "peaceful" protesters are like








Interesting stuff

Bernie speaking tomorrow in Madison. Have to make a decision between going to class and going to see Bernie

Go there with a Goal Legacy banner.

Donald Trump proposes abortion ban, punishment for women who undergo procedure

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-proposes-abortion-ban-punishment-for-women-who-undergo-procedure/

Never cease to amaze me.


Would be hilarious when Hillary wins the election with a landslide

I wonder how realistic Trump is about his chances himself. There's no way he can become the president, I don't believe that. What's his plan after the election? He came out of nowhere, is he going to go back to nowhere? Or is he planning a late career in politics? He is what he is, but he's not stupid. Has he got a plan or is it a case of "just having a helluva time of it"?