In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 10 2015 22:52 ticklishmusic wrote: Trump isn't near as rich as he claims to be. He *might* be about rich as Perot, but with super PAC's that counts for a lot less.
Besides, he's already bought publicity. Or rather, he's lost a shit ton of money because people now refuse to do business with him.
Even if it's exaggerated, that's still more than the hundreds of millions raised by other candidates.
For comparison, Ross Perot had about $3.5 billion net worth. Although I think what's more important is the fact that Trump is a hell of a lot more intimidating yet appealing to the common person who doesn't really follow politics.
Appealing? I really thought the public just thought he was an egotistical douche and kind of a joke businessman by this point in his career. He will never win anything in this election because no one will ever take him seriously or think he can actually do the job. If he were to magically win the primary the country will be out of their seats laughing at what the GOP has let itself become and the Dems cruise to an ez life victory.
I'm not really under that impression. At least, I think a decent-sized percentage of Americans still think he can get shit done because he's been held up as a big boss man for so long (primarily on his reality shows, which do get viewership and a reputation). He's certainly an egotistical douche, but I think his matter-of-fact businessman approach makes him pretty much Chris Christie but better in every way (including having more money, a longer CV, and a stronger reputation). His motto is basically "I don't give a shit what you think of me, because I'm going to get shit done", and I think a lot of laymen would believe he could strongarm people and countries (except maybe that whole "Mexico is gonna build their own wall and pay us" thing lmao).
On July 10 2015 13:50 Mohdoo wrote: I can't help but wonder if maybe Trump really does intend to run for president. Anyone else starting to think "maybe this isn't just a stunt"?
Given that he's actually polling well compared to his competition, it's not really surprising. I imagine everyone would make the jump from "joke campaign" to "actual campaign" if it looked like they had a real chance.
Does he really have a chance in the general election though? Isn't it just the Republican primary electorate where he is polling well?
At least that is how it is reported in media here in EU. Judging from the little I heard from the pre-election tantrum, so far his campaign ranges from open racism to bragging with his wealth to completely outlandish behavior in interviews, surely this cannot be taken serious by the larger public?
On July 10 2015 22:52 ticklishmusic wrote: Trump isn't near as rich as he claims to be. He *might* be about rich as Perot, but with super PAC's that counts for a lot less.
Besides, he's already bought publicity. Or rather, he's lost a shit ton of money because people now refuse to do business with him.
Even if it's exaggerated, that's still more than the hundreds of millions raised by other candidates.
For comparison, Ross Perot had about $3.5 billion net worth. Although I think what's more important is the fact that Trump is a hell of a lot more intimidating yet appealing to the common person who doesn't really follow politics.
Appealing? I really thought the public just thought he was an egotistical douche and kind of a joke businessman by this point in his career. He will never win anything in this election because no one will ever take him seriously or think he can actually do the job. If he were to magically win the primary the country will be out of their seats laughing at what the GOP has let itself become and the Dems cruise to an ez life victory.
I'm not really under that impression. At least, I think a decent-sized percentage of Americans still think he can get shit done because he's been held up as a big boss man for so long (primarily on his reality shows, which do get viewership and a reputation). He's certainly an egotistical douche, but I think his matter-of-fact businessman approach makes him pretty much Chris Christie but better in every way (including having more money, a longer CV, and a stronger reputation). His motto is basically "I don't give a shit what you think of me, because I'm going to get shit done", and I think a lot of laymen would believe he could strongarm people and countries (except maybe that whole "Mexico is gonna build their own wall and pay us" thing lmao).
No country would take the US seriously anymore. It would be their collective "This is it, the US has finally gone off the deep end" moment and Putin would be like "let me talk to him personally huehuehuehue".
On July 10 2015 13:50 Mohdoo wrote: I can't help but wonder if maybe Trump really does intend to run for president. Anyone else starting to think "maybe this isn't just a stunt"?
Given that he's actually polling well compared to his competition, it's not really surprising. I imagine everyone would make the jump from "joke campaign" to "actual campaign" if it looked like they had a real chance.
Does he really have a chance in the general election though? Isn't it just the Republican primary electorate where he is polling well?
At least that is how it is reported in media here in EU. Judging from the little I heard from the pre-election tantrum, so far his campaign ranges from open racism to bragging with his wealth to completely outlandish behavior in interviews, surely this cannot be taken serious by the larger public?
Lol no he doesn't have any real chance. He is just among the loudest talking mouths among a sea of GOP potential candidates so loyalty dilution is real. I would bet a fair amount of his so called "supporters" actually are just using him because they care about issues he shoots his mouth off about (IE Immigration). Kind of a wink wink hint hint to the real candidates.
On July 10 2015 22:52 ticklishmusic wrote: Trump isn't near as rich as he claims to be. He *might* be about rich as Perot, but with super PAC's that counts for a lot less.
Besides, he's already bought publicity. Or rather, he's lost a shit ton of money because people now refuse to do business with him.
Even if it's exaggerated, that's still more than the hundreds of millions raised by other candidates.
For comparison, Ross Perot had about $3.5 billion net worth. Although I think what's more important is the fact that Trump is a hell of a lot more intimidating yet appealing to the common person who doesn't really follow politics.
Appealing? I really thought the public just thought he was an egotistical douche and kind of a joke businessman by this point in his career. He will never win anything in this election because no one will ever take him seriously or think he can actually do the job. If he were to magically win the primary the country will be out of their seats laughing at what the GOP has let itself become and the Dems cruise to an ez life victory.
I'm not really under that impression. At least, I think a decent-sized percentage of Americans still think he can get shit done because he's been held up as a big boss man for so long (primarily on his reality shows, which do get viewership and a reputation). He's certainly an egotistical douche, but I think his matter-of-fact businessman approach makes him pretty much Chris Christie but better in every way (including having more money, a longer CV, and a stronger reputation). His motto is basically "I don't give a shit what you think of me, because I'm going to get shit done", and I think a lot of laymen would believe he could strongarm people and countries (except maybe that whole "Mexico is gonna build their own wall and pay us" thing lmao).
No country would take the US seriously anymore. It would be their collective "This is it, the US has finally gone off the deep end" moment and Putin would be like "let me talk to him personally huehuehuehue".
Some people forget the 2004 election results and the response from EU. They are shocked by nothing after that.
On July 10 2015 13:50 Mohdoo wrote: I can't help but wonder if maybe Trump really does intend to run for president. Anyone else starting to think "maybe this isn't just a stunt"?
Given that he's actually polling well compared to his competition, it's not really surprising. I imagine everyone would make the jump from "joke campaign" to "actual campaign" if it looked like they had a real chance.
Does he really have a chance in the general election though? Isn't it just the Republican primary electorate where he is polling well?
At least that is how it is reported in media here in EU. Judging from the little I heard from the pre-election tantrum, so far his campaign ranges from open racism to bragging with his wealth to completely outlandish behavior in interviews, surely this cannot be taken serious by the larger public?
Assuming Trump wins the Republican primary and assuming it's Clinton vs. Trump, I think Clinton would win, but not by a huge amount, and primarily because Trump's rhetoric has been pretty good in terms of making his points and not getting hung up/ caught in any gotcha moments, even though Trump is politically inept.
On July 10 2015 22:52 ticklishmusic wrote: Trump isn't near as rich as he claims to be. He *might* be about rich as Perot, but with super PAC's that counts for a lot less.
Besides, he's already bought publicity. Or rather, he's lost a shit ton of money because people now refuse to do business with him.
Even if it's exaggerated, that's still more than the hundreds of millions raised by other candidates.
For comparison, Ross Perot had about $3.5 billion net worth. Although I think what's more important is the fact that Trump is a hell of a lot more intimidating yet appealing to the common person who doesn't really follow politics.
Appealing? I really thought the public just thought he was an egotistical douche and kind of a joke businessman by this point in his career. He will never win anything in this election because no one will ever take him seriously or think he can actually do the job. If he were to magically win the primary the country will be out of their seats laughing at what the GOP has let itself become and the Dems cruise to an ez life victory.
I'm not really under that impression. At least, I think a decent-sized percentage of Americans still think he can get shit done because he's been held up as a big boss man for so long (primarily on his reality shows, which do get viewership and a reputation). He's certainly an egotistical douche, but I think his matter-of-fact businessman approach makes him pretty much Chris Christie but better in every way (including having more money, a longer CV, and a stronger reputation). His motto is basically "I don't give a shit what you think of me, because I'm going to get shit done", and I think a lot of laymen would believe he could strongarm people and countries (except maybe that whole "Mexico is gonna build their own wall and pay us" thing lmao).
No country would take the US seriously anymore. It would be their collective "This is it, the US has finally gone off the deep end" moment and Putin would be like "let me talk to him personally huehuehuehue".
I definitely agree, but I don't think Americans care as much about our image to the rest of the world as they do about promises of "making American great again" on their own merits.
I think our country is very gullible, and Trump's snake oil can sell for quite a bit of cash.
On July 10 2015 22:52 ticklishmusic wrote: Trump isn't near as rich as he claims to be. He *might* be about rich as Perot, but with super PAC's that counts for a lot less.
Besides, he's already bought publicity. Or rather, he's lost a shit ton of money because people now refuse to do business with him.
Even if it's exaggerated, that's still more than the hundreds of millions raised by other candidates.
For comparison, Ross Perot had about $3.5 billion net worth. Although I think what's more important is the fact that Trump is a hell of a lot more intimidating yet appealing to the common person who doesn't really follow politics.
Appealing? I really thought the public just thought he was an egotistical douche and kind of a joke businessman by this point in his career. He will never win anything in this election because no one will ever take him seriously or think he can actually do the job. If he were to magically win the primary the country will be out of their seats laughing at what the GOP has let itself become and the Dems cruise to an ez life victory.
I'm not really under that impression. At least, I think a decent-sized percentage of Americans still think he can get shit done because he's been held up as a big boss man for so long (primarily on his reality shows, which do get viewership and a reputation). He's certainly an egotistical douche, but I think his matter-of-fact businessman approach makes him pretty much Chris Christie but better in every way (including having more money, a longer CV, and a stronger reputation). His motto is basically "I don't give a shit what you think of me, because I'm going to get shit done", and I think a lot of laymen would believe he could strongarm people and countries (except maybe that whole "Mexico is gonna build their own wall and pay us" thing lmao).
No country would take the US seriously anymore. It would be their collective "This is it, the US has finally gone off the deep end" moment and Putin would be like "let me talk to him personally huehuehuehue".
Some people forget the 2004 election results and the response from EU. They are shocked by nothing after that.
That whole thing was pretty silly, with Americans doing that "Sorry we tried" campaign thing.~ GWB was still a more legit candidate then Trump can ever hope to be. The world would just see it as another step towards oblivion if he were elected president.
Right now Trump is catering to the republican Superdelegates not the average voter. They have 20,000 times the voting power than the average joe so its not a bad strategy to partake in.
Take a look at the new Air Force One and Marine One
On July 11 2015 01:59 whatisthisasheep wrote: Right now Trump is catering to the republican Superdelegates not the average voter. They have 20,000 times the voting power than the average joe so its not a bad strategy to partake in.
On July 11 2015 01:59 whatisthisasheep wrote: Right now Trump is catering to the republican Superdelegates not the average voter. They have 20,000 times the voting power than the average joe so its not a bad strategy to partake in.
Not only did GOP House leadership create possibly days' worth of controversy by trying to sneak some language protecting the display of the Confederate flag into a larger spending bill. They did it while keeping most of their rank-and-file in the dark about it, including the Republican lawmakers tasked with pulling together the appropriations bill, which was pulled from the floor Thursday due to the Confederate flag fracas.
A report by CQ Roll Call details which Republican lawmakers knew what when Wednesday night, as Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) introduced the disastrous amendment that would have reversed previously approved measures banning the display of the Confederate flag on certain federal lands. The failed gambit appeared to be a last-minute attempt by leadership to save the Interior appropriations bill -- the first major spending bill Republican lawmakers were hoping to pass this session -- which was facing opposition from the caucus' right flank over the Confederate flag prohibitions, as well as for going too soft, in their view, on the EPA.
CQ Roll Call details how Republican members on the Appropriations Committee found out about the late-night twist that would end up derailing the bill and ultimately give Democrats the upper hand in the Confederate flag debate:
The real red flag was the sudden appearance of leadership staff, namely senior aides for Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., and Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio.
But for members not on the floor at the time, the realization that something was up came more slowly.
“I usually stay around for most of the debate on the Interior bill, but I had to go get my dry cleaning so I’d have something to wear today,” Rep. Mike Simpson, (R-ID), the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee told Roll Call, recalling the moment when Calvert took the floor with the amendment. “I got home and turned on the TV and Ken was using his motions to strike the last word … and I said, ‘What’s going on?’ And all of a sudden somebody hands him this amendment and he does it and I kind of go, ‘Oh, shit.'"
Meanwhile, according to the Roll Call report, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), another member of the Appropriations Committee, was out to dinner with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). Stewart said his phone was low on battery, preventing his colleagues from informing him of the unfolding drama, but his dinner partner made no mention that the amendment was coming.
Democrats said they were shocked by the move, and went on the offensive Thursday, calling out Republicans for the reversal.
Usually don't go for National Review, but I thought this was a very good article:
But let’s fast-forward and imagine an increasingly plausible future where Confederate memorials are piles of rubble, Confederate bones are interred in landfills, and Confederate flags linger on mainly as fading stickers on a few mud-covered pickup trucks — will America be a better nation? Will a single inner-city school improve? Will we have taken a single meaningful step toward finding a way to responsibly end mass incarceration? Will community and police relations improve, at all? Will the leftist urban elite stop oppressing the liberal urban poor?
Yes, America would be a better nation. I'm not entirely sure what that article could possibly be trying to say? Will an end to celebrating a white supremacist culture cure cancer? Probably not. Should we do it anyway? Yes. Will it be better? Yes, but still do cancer research.
On July 11 2015 05:59 JinDesu wrote: That's it guys. Doing tiny little good things won't cure cancer or solve energy issues, so let's not do them at all.
Besides, I'm sure the first few cancers that are cured aren't even gonna be the most important ones, according to Republicans. Why bother with even those? >.<
On July 11 2015 05:59 JinDesu wrote: That's it guys. Doing tiny little good things won't cure cancer or solve energy issues, so let's not do them at all.
Well, there is the argument that we spent a lot of political capital on, essentially, a distraction. Just like how earlier Texas took a case to the Supreme Court so they could keep selling $200 license plates with Longhorns and Realtors on them but not confederate flags and hammers and sickles.
I don't subscribe to this argument, because I think people who really spend a lot of effort on these distractions are highly correlated to people who have idiotic ideas about things that actually matter. If they do focus on actual issues you get people like Gavin Newsom who are in power, and like to work "small to big" and end up just harassing small business owners in their state. Would be much better off if he was concerned about changing the California flag because bears are too scary.
On July 11 2015 05:59 JinDesu wrote: That's it guys. Doing tiny little good things won't cure cancer or solve energy issues, so let's not do them at all.
Well, there is the argument that we spent a lot of political capital on, essentially, a distraction. Just like how earlier Texas took a case to the Supreme Court so they could keep selling $200 license plates with Longhorns and Realtors on them but not confederate flags and hammers and sickles.
I don't subscribe to this argument, because I think people who really spend a lot of effort on these distractions are highly correlated to people who have idiotic ideas about things that actually matter. If they do focus on actual issues you get people like Gavin Newsom who are in power, and like to work "small to big" and end up just harassing small business owners in their state. Would be much better off if he was concerned about changing the California flag because bears are too scary.
The problem with that is that a lot of people spent time and effort making it so those symbols couldn't be easily removed. Its only a side show because people are trying to keep the symbol where it is.
On July 11 2015 05:59 JinDesu wrote: That's it guys. Doing tiny little good things won't cure cancer or solve energy issues, so let's not do them at all.
Well, there is the argument that we spent a lot of political capital on, essentially, a distraction. Just like how earlier Texas took a case to the Supreme Court so they could keep selling $200 license plates with Longhorns and Realtors on them but not confederate flags and hammers and sickles.
I don't subscribe to this argument, because I think people who really spend a lot of effort on these distractions are highly correlated to people who have idiotic ideas about things that actually matter. If they do focus on actual issues you get people like Gavin Newsom who are in power, and like to work "small to big" and end up just harassing small business owners in their state. Would be much better off if he was concerned about changing the California flag because bears are too scary.
The problem with that is that a lot of people spent time and effort making it so those symbols couldn't be easily removed. Its only a side show because people are trying to keep the symbol where it is.
Yea, and those people are probably idiots as well that would otherwise be tripling mandatory minimums for possessing $5 of meth.
The point that they're making is channeling public anger and hate about things correctly. Being angry at the confederate flag in stores and in the south is nothing when the same stores still sell ISIS and nazi merch. It won't solve racism to stop the use of the flag it'll only make people feel better about racism.
Its like people being angry about gun laws when Charleston came around when everyone knew the fourth of july was coming and more black people were going to be killed then and no one gave a shit. People should be angry at black people being shot beacuse they're black reguardless of whos shooting them.
EPT
